Administrative judicial review in Ethiopia is fundamentally governed by the Federal Administrative Procedure Proclamation No. 1183/2012, which establishes the legal framework for ensuring that executive bodies act within the scope of their authority and respect the rights of individuals. At its core, an administrative decision subject to such review is defined as an act performed by an administrative agency in its day-to-day operations that affects the rights or interests of persons, though it specifically excludes the issuance of directives. The primary objective of this review mechanism is to foster administrative justice by allowing a court to examine the legality, procedural fairness, and reasonableness of actions taken by the executive branch.
A critical distinction exists between a standard statutory appeal and an administrative judicial review, particularly regarding their scope and focus. While an appeal generally allows a court to scrutinize both the procedural history and the substantive outcome of a case to correct errors of fact or law, judicial review is inherently narrower, primarily focusing on the integrity of the process and the reasonableness of the decision-making. Because of this broader scope, the legal system often prefers the use of a specialized appeal process where one is available, as it provides a more comprehensive opportunity for a litigant to seek redress.
The Federal Supreme Court Cassation Division, in File Number 252364, clarified the jurisdictional boundaries of this review by emphasizing that the Administrative Procedure Proclamation does not automatically override existing statutory appeal routes. For instance, when an administrative body like a city-level health authority takes disciplinary action based on a specific professional ethics directive, the resulting decision may be characterized as “quasi-judicial” if it involves the hearing of evidence and arguments in a manner resembling a court proceeding. In such cases, if specialized laws—such as the Addis Ababa City Charter (Proclamation No. 361/95) or specific agency directives—provide a dedicated path for appeal to a “competent court,” that path must be exhausted rather than seeking a general judicial review at the Federal High Court.
The jurisprudence of the Cassation Division highlights a nuanced “quasi-judicial” test to determine the appropriate procedural track. For example, in File Number 200289, the court permitted judicial review under Proclamation 1183/2012 because the administrative action in question was a direct executive order to close a facility without a formal hearing. However, in File Number 252364, the court reached a different conclusion because the applicants had undergone a structured disciplinary process before an Ethics Committee. The court reasoned that since the committee functioned in a quasi-judicial capacity and a specific right of appeal was granted by the relevant directive, the general review provisions of the Administrative Procedure Proclamation were not applicable.
Ultimately, administrative judicial review serves as a vital constitutional safeguard for the right to access justice under Article 37 of the FDRE Constitution, ensuring that individuals are not left without a remedy against arbitrary state action. Nevertheless, its application is contingent upon the nature of the administrative act and the availability of other specific legal remedies. Where a legislature has established a specialized appellate system for quasi-judicial administrative findings, the Federal High Court lacks the subject-matter jurisdiction to review those decisions under the general administrative law framework, as the specialized route is deemed more appropriate for the nature of the dispute. This ensures that the Administrative Procedure Proclamation functions as a gap-filling measure for administrative justice rather than a tool to bypass established statutory mandates.