Key Legal Rules on Business and Insurance: A Review of Ethiopian Cassation Decisions (Volume 25)

Introduction

Judicial precedent plays a pivotal role in the development and consistent application of law within any legal system. In Ethiopia, the Cassation Division of the Federal Supreme Court stands as the highest interpreter of laws, ensuring uniformity and predictability in the legal landscape. Its decisions, particularly those published in volumes like this, provide authoritative interpretations of various legislative instruments and shape legal practice across the nation. This chapter delves into a selection of landmark cassation decisions from Volume 25, focusing on critical issues within business and insurance law. By examining the legal issues, underlying principles, and the Cassation Division’s rulings, we aim to illuminate the nuances of Ethiopian commercial and insurance jurisprudence. This compilation serves not only as a reference for legal professionals but also as an educational resource for understanding the practical application of codified laws and general legal concepts in real-world disputes. The cases presented herein address fundamental aspects ranging from contractual liability and limitation periods to negotiable instruments, intellectual property rights, and the intricacies of insurance policy interpretation.

1. Cassation Case No. 177907: Prescription Periods in Insurance Subrogation Claims

• Legal Issue: This case addresses a crucial procedural and substantive question: how long does an insurer have to claim reimbursement from its insured after paying compensation to a third party, and from what point does this limitation period begin? This issue touches upon the concepts of subrogation, contractual versus non-contractual liability, and the fundamental purpose of statutory limitation periods.
• Key Legal Rules/Principles:
  • Commercial Code Article 674(1): This article establishes a specific, relatively short two-year limitation period for claims “arising from an insurance contract.” The rationale behind such specific and often shorter limitation periods in commercial transactions is to promote certainty, quick resolution of disputes, and the stability of commercial relationships. It underscores the commercial nature of the relationship between insurer and insured.
  • Civil Code Article 2143(1) & (2): This article specifies a two-year limitation period for claims arising from non-contractual liability (tort), with subsection (2) allowing for a longer period if the damage arises from a criminal offense with a longer penal limitation period. In this specific case, this article was deemed inapplicable as the relationship between the insurer and insured is contractual.
  • Proclamation No. 799/2005 (Third-Party Motor Insurance): This proclamation introduces the concept of a “tripartite relationship” in third-party motor insurance. This means the insurer has obligations not just to the insured, but also directly to the third-party victim. Article 6(2) specifically grants the insurer the right to seek reimbursement from the insured. The absence of a specific limitation period within this proclamation necessitates recourse to general or analogous provisions in other codes.
  • Civil Code Article 1846: This general provision on limitation periods states that time begins to run “from the day when the obligation is due or the rights under the contract could be exercised.” This principle is vital in determining the commencement point of a limitation period, emphasizing that a right cannot be prescribed before it has accrued or become enforceable.
• Cassation Division Ruling: The Cassation Division ruled that for an insurer’s subrogation claim seeking reimbursement from the insured, the two-year limitation period under Commercial Code Article 674(1) commences from the date the insurer actually paid compensation to the third party. It emphatically rejected the argument that the period should begin from the date of the accident. This interpretation harmonizes Commercial Code Article 674(1) with Civil Code Article 1846. The court recognized that the insurer’s right to seek reimbursement from the insured only accrues after it has fulfilled its primary obligation to the third party. This aligns with the fundamental objective of prescription, which is to encourage diligence in pursuing rights, a right that only becomes exercisable upon the insurer’s payment.

2. Cassation Case No. 196878: Insurer Liability and Policy Exclusions in Third-Party Insurance

• Legal Issue: This case clarifies the extent of an insurer’s direct liability to a third-party victim under a motor insurance policy, particularly when the insured has allegedly violated policy terms (e.g., vehicle overloading). It addresses the delicate balance between protecting third-party victims and upholding the contractual agreements between the insurer and the insured.
• Key Legal Rules/Principles:
  • Proclamation No. 799/2005 (Third-Party Motor Insurance): As noted in the previous case, this proclamation establishes a tripartite relationship, providing direct benefits to third-party victims. This is a crucial public policy aspect, ensuring that victims of motor accidents are compensated, even if the insured is in breach of their policy.
  • Proclamation No. 799/2005, Article 6(1): This provision is a cornerstone of third-party insurance protection. It nullifies any policy clause that attempts to exclude or condition the insurer’s liability to the third party, whether by stating “no liability may arise under such policy” or by specifying actions or omissions after the incident that would cause liability to cease. This prevents insurers from escaping their obligations to innocent victims due to the insured’s post-accident conduct or non-compliance with policy terms.
  • Proclamation No. 799/2005, Article 6(2): This article provides a mechanism for insurers to seek redress from their own insured. While the insurer cannot deny payment to the third party, they retain the right to raise policy exclusions or conditions against the insured after compensating the victim. This maintains the integrity of the insurance contract between the insurer and the insured, allowing for reimbursement actions.
  • Proclamation No. 799/2005, Article 16(1/b): This provision sets a specific monetary limit for bodily injury liability (40,000 Birr), demonstrating legislative intent to cap certain compensation amounts in third-party motor insurance.
  • Civil Procedure Code Article 462: This article embodies the general principle of cost shifting in litigation, allowing the court to order the losing party to reimburse litigation costs. This reinforces the idea that justice includes compensating the prevailing party for expenses incurred in legal proceedings.
• Cassation Division Ruling: The Cassation Division firmly ruled that an insurer’s obligation to compensate a third party is absolute, irrespective of the insured’s violation of policy terms (such as overloading the vehicle). The court emphasized that any arguments regarding such violations can only be raised by the insurer against the insured and only after the insurer has made the payment to the third party. This decision reinforces the protective nature of third-party motor insurance for victims and clarifies the sequence of claims between the insurer, insured, and the third party. The affirmation of the lower courts’ decision regarding maximum compensation and cost sharing indicates consistency in applying these principles.

3. Cassation Case No. 193270: The Legal Validity of “Blank Cheques”

• Legal Issue: This case critically examines the legal effect of a “blank cheque”—a cheque signed by the drawer but left incomplete regarding essential details like the amount and/or date. The ruling sheds light on the interplay between the formal requirements for negotiable instruments and the principle of freedom of contract, especially in established business relationships.
• Key Legal Rules/Principles:
  • Commercial Code Article 827(a-e): This article meticulously lists the mandatory elements for a document to qualify as a valid cheque (e.g., unconditional order, drawee’s name, amount, date of issue, signature). These formal requirements are crucial for the security and reliability of cheques as instruments of payment.
  • Commercial Code Article 828: This acts as a strict consequence clause, declaring a document lacking any of Article 827’s elements as not a cheque. This provision typically emphasizes strict adherence to form for the negotiability and enforceability of the instrument.
  • Commercial Code Article 841: This article introduces a significant exception or clarification: if a cheque was incomplete when issued, the drawer generally cannot argue it was filled contrary to agreement unless the bearer acted in “bad faith or grave fault.” This principle protects the fluidity of commerce and the legitimate expectations of holders in due course.
  • Commercial Code Articles 717, 841, 850: These articles collectively outline the permissible defenses a drawer can raise against a cheque payment. These defenses are generally limited to formal defects, fraud, forgery, lack of capacity, or bad faith on the part of the bearer, rather than issues with the underlying transaction unless directly related to the instrument’s validity.
  • Commercial Code Article 732, 829, 830, 840: These provisions collectively underscore the nature of a cheque as a payment instrument. The bank’s primary obligation is to pay if the cheque meets formal requirements upon presentation, reinforcing the cheque’s role as a reliable and autonomous payment mechanism, largely detached from the underlying transaction once issued.
  • Freedom of Contract: This fundamental principle of contract law suggests that parties are generally free to agree on terms, including implied agreements. In the context of a blank cheque, if a drawer intentionally hands over an incomplete but signed cheque, there’s a strong presumption of implied consent for the bearer to complete it.
  • Cassation Ruling (Cassation Case No. 166392): This prior ruling establishes that oral agreements for using cheques as guarantees are legally ineffective, emphasizing the need for written guarantee agreements. This highlights the importance of formality for certain types of agreements, especially those related to negotiable instruments.
• Cassation Division Ruling: The Cassation Division held that a blank cheque (missing amount and/or date) is legally valid if it is completed by the bearer before presentation to the bank and the drawer’s signature is authentic. The court critically distinguished between the moment of issue and the moment of presentation to the bank. It clarified that Commercial Code Articles 827 and 828 demand formal completeness at the time of presentation for payment, not necessarily at the initial moment of issue. The ruling also took into account the parties’ established business relationship, where the routine completion and honoring of such cheques implied an agreement. This decision protects commercial fluidity while ensuring formal integrity at the point of payment.

4. Cassation Case No. 173380: Retroactive Application of Insurance Contract Extensions

• Legal Issue: This case explores a core principle of insurance law: whether an insurance contract extension can retroactively cover an accident that occurred before the extension agreement was signed. This delves into the concept of insurable risk, the principle of utmost good faith, and the timing of contractual obligations.
• Key Legal Rules/Principles:
  • Commercial Code Article 659(1): This general rule stipulates that an insurance policy becomes effective from the date it is signed, unless explicitly agreed otherwise. This reflects the common understanding that contracts, especially insurance contracts, govern future risks from a specified effective date.
  • Civil Code Articles 1725, 1726, 1727(1) & (2): These articles outline general formal requirements for contracts, including written form and witness signatures for certain types of agreements, such as long-term insurance. These formalities are intended to ensure clarity, provide evidence, and protect parties in significant contracts.
  • Commercial Code Article 654: This foundational article defines an insurance contract as an agreement where an insurer undertakes to pay a sum upon the occurrence of a “specified risk.” The essence of insurance is to manage uncertainty and future events.
  • Cassation Ruling (Cassation Case No. 23003, 1999 E.C.): This prior ruling made a key distinction: for short-term insurance contracts, the strict formal requirements of Civil Code Articles 1725 and 1727 (e.g., signatures of both parties or witnesses) may not strictly apply. This acknowledges the practical realities of everyday, high-volume insurance transactions.
  • Fundamental Principle of Insurance: A core tenet of insurance is that it typically covers future or unknown risks. It is not generally designed to cover damages that have already occurred and are known. To allow retroactive coverage, there must be a clear, explicit, and unambiguous agreement between the parties, coupled with the principle of utmost good faith (uberrimae fidei), where both parties fully disclose all relevant information, especially if the “risk” is no longer uncertain.
• Cassation Division Ruling: The Cassation Division firmly ruled that an insurance extension agreement cannot retroactively cover an accident that transpired before its signing, unless there is an explicit and unambiguous agreement for such retroactive effect within the contract itself. The court found that presuming a retroactive application based on an “error” in the original policy would contradict the fundamental nature of insurance—which is to cover future risks—and Commercial Code Article 659(1). The ruling by the lower courts that the insurer was liable for damages predating the extension was reversed.

5. Cassation Case No. 171352: Liability and Notice Requirements in International Air Cargo

• Legal Issue: This case clarifies the legal framework for liability, notice requirements, and compensation calculation in disputes concerning damage or loss of cargo during international air transport. It highlights the supremacy of international conventions in governing cross-border commercial activities.
• Key Legal Rules/Principles:
  • Montreal Convention of 1999: This international treaty is the prevailing legal framework for international air transport, having superseded the earlier Warsaw Convention protocols for incidents occurring after its effective date in Ethiopia (ratified via Proclamation No. 820/2006, effective Feb 10, 2014). The Convention aims to standardize rules relating to the international carriage of persons, baggage, and cargo by air.
  • Montreal Convention Article 29: This article mandates that any claims related to international air transport must adhere to the convention’s specified conditions and limits of liability. This emphasizes the comprehensive nature of the Convention as the primary source of law for such disputes.
  • Montreal Convention Article 31(2-4): This provision outlines a critical pre-condition for litigation: a written complaint for cargo damage must be submitted to the carrier within 14 days of receiving the cargo. Failure to comply generally bars the right to sue, unless the claimant can prove unavoidable circumstances. This notice requirement is not merely a statute of limitations but a condition precedent to legal action, designed to allow carriers to investigate claims promptly.
  • Montreal Convention Article 22(3): This article sets a specific limit on the carrier’s liability for cargo damage, capping it at 17 Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) per kilogram. SDRs are an international reserve asset created by the IMF, used here to provide a stable, internationally recognized value for liability limits. Crucially, this limit can only be exceeded if the consignor made a special declaration of interest at the time of delivery to the carrier and paid a supplementary fee, reflecting the principle that higher value requires higher declared risk and premium.
• Cassation Division Ruling: The Cassation Division confirmed that the Montreal Convention of 1999 is the applicable law for international air cargo disputes post-ratification in Ethiopia. The court found that lower courts erred by disregarding the 14-day notice requirement, clarifying that it is a mandatory pre-condition for litigation, not merely a statute of limitations. Furthermore, the court stressed that compensation calculation must strictly adhere to the 17 SDR per kilogram limit unless a special declaration of value was made and a supplementary fee paid. Calculating compensation solely on purchase price without considering these Convention rules constitutes an error of law. The case was remanded, highlighting the necessity of strict adherence to international treaty obligations.

6. Cassation Case No. 179983: Prescription Period for Insurer’s Reimbursement (Reiteration)

• Legal Issue: This case reinforces and applies the principles established in Cassation Case No. 177907 regarding the applicable prescription period and its calculation for an insurer’s subrogation claim against the insured due to a breach of the insurance contract (e.g., vehicle overloading).
• Key Legal Rules/Principles: This decision largely reiterates and solidifies the legal principles discussed under Cassation Case No. 177907. It underscores the importance of stare decisis (precedent) in legal systems.
  • Commercial Code Article 674(1): Confirms the two-year limitation period for claims arising from an insurance contract.
  • Proclamation No. 799/2005 (Third-Party Motor Insurance), Article 6(2): Reaffirms the insurer’s right to claim reimbursement from the insured.
  • Civil Code Article 2143(2): Reconfirms its inapplicability due to the contractual nature of the relationship.
  • Civil Code Article 1846: Reasserts its role in defining the starting point for limitation periods.
• Cassation Division Ruling: Consistent with its previous rulings, the Cassation Division affirmed that the two-year limitation period under Commercial Code Article 674(1) applies to an insurer’s reimbursement claim against the insured. Crucially, the period begins from the date the insurer paid compensation to the third party, as this is when the insurer’s right to claim against its insured fully accrues. The court reversed lower court decisions that calculated the period from the date of the accident, reinforcing judicial consistency on this point.

7. Cassation Case No. 192580: Confusing Similarity of Trademarks and Trade Names

• Legal Issue: This case addresses the critical issue of determining whether a trademark and a trade name are confusingly similar and potentially misleading to the public, and outlines the proper legal framework and evidentiary standards for resolving such intellectual property disputes. This case highlights the importance of protecting consumer interests and maintaining fair competition.
• Key Legal Rules/Principles:
  • Trade Mark Registration and Protection Proclamation No. 501/1998, Article 2(12) and Articles 26-28: This proclamation defines trademarks and grants exclusive rights to their owners. These rights are fundamental to preventing unauthorized use of similar marks, especially in ways that might cause confusion among consumers regarding the origin of goods or services.
  • Trade Registration and Licensing Proclamation No. 980/2008, Article 2(10): This proclamation defines trade names, which are used to identify businesses. While distinct from trademarks, trade names also serve a distinguishing function in the marketplace.
  • Trade Competition and Consumer Protection Proclamation No. 813/2006: This proclamation is relevant for addressing broader issues of unfair trade competition and protecting consumers from deceptive or misleading business practices, which can arise from confusingly similar names or marks.
  • Nice Agreement (International Classification of Goods and Services): This international agreement provides a standardized classification system for goods and services to which trademarks are applied (e.g., Class 36 for property administration and valuation). This classification helps in determining the scope of trademark protection and assessing the likelihood of confusion in specific market sectors.
  • Cassation Ruling (ሠ/መ/ቁ. 57179): This prior cassation ruling provides guidance that when trademarks and trade names are confusingly similar, relevant legal frameworks should be applied harmoniously, generally favoring the party with earlier registration. This emphasizes the “first in time, first in right” principle common in intellectual property law.
  • Civil Procedure Code Articles 136 and 264: These articles pertain to the use of expert witnesses and the general principles of evidence presentation. In complex technical matters like trademark similarity, expert opinions can be crucial in assisting the court’s assessment.
• Cassation Division Ruling: The Cassation Division found that the lower courts erred by failing to adequately assess evidence concerning the confusing similarity between the trademark and trade name and their potential to mislead the public. The court emphasized that a prior administrative decision by the Intellectual Property Office regarding an opposition to trademark registration should have been given proper weight by the court, indicating the importance of administrative expertise. The ruling stressed that determining confusing similarity requires an objective assessment, which might necessitate the involvement of expert witnesses, rather than relying solely on judicial presumption. The case was remanded for a re-examination consistent with these principles and the relevant proclamations, ensuring a more thorough and evidence-based approach to intellectual property disputes.

8. Cassation Case No. 197994: Legality and Calculation of “Excess” (Deductible) in Insurance Policies

• Legal Issue: This case examines the legal validity and proper calculation of an “Excess” (or deductible/own damage) clause in an insurance policy, particularly questioning its applicability even when the insured is not at fault for the loss. This delves into fundamental principles of insurance contracting, risk allocation, and the burden of proof.
• Key Legal Rules/Principles:
  • Commercial Code Articles 678(1) & (2) and 665(1) & (2): These articles provide general principles for property damage compensation, stipulating that it should be based on the market value at the time of the accident and not exceed the sum insured. This forms the basis for determining the total insurable loss.
  • Commercial Code Articles 654 & following, and 658: These specify the essential elements of an insurance policy, including premium, type of risk, compensation amount, and agreements concerning the insured’s responsibilities. This highlights the contractual nature of insurance and the importance of clearly defined terms.
  • Commercial Code Article 663(2): This article permits agreements between the insurer and insured that might reduce or deny compensation if the damage is due to the insured’s negligence. This speaks to the concept of moral hazard and the insurer’s right to mitigate risk through contractual terms.
  • Civil Code Article 1731(1): This fundamental principle of contract law states that “validly formed contracts are legally binding between the parties.” This principle, pacta sunt servanda, is crucial for upholding the enforceability of insurance policy terms, including deductibles.
  • “Excess” / “Own Damage” (Deductible): This is a common contractual mechanism in insurance. It represents a portion of the loss that the insured agrees to bear personally. The rationale behind deductibles is threefold: it acts as a risk-sharing mechanism, encourages the insured to be more diligent in preventing losses (reducing moral hazard), and minimizes small, frequent claims, thereby reducing administrative costs for the insurer.
  • Burden of Proof (Basic Principle): A foundational principle of evidence law dictates that the party asserting a fact bears the responsibility of proving it with admissible evidence. This is crucial for ensuring fairness and preventing unsubstantiated claims.
• Cassation Division Ruling: The Cassation Division unequivocally ruled that an “Excess” (deductible) clause in an insurance policy is legally valid and binding on the parties if it was clearly agreed upon. This holds true even if the insured is not at fault for the accident, as it represents a legitimate and agreed-upon risk-sharing mechanism within the contract. The court found that the lower courts erred by ordering the insurer to return the entire deductible when the policy clearly stipulated a 10% deductible based on the assessed market value. However, the insurer’s claim for a “double excess” (implying additional conditions) was rejected due to the insurer’s failure to provide a written “Endorsement” (an additional contractual agreement) as evidence. Similarly, the lower court’s decision to reject the insurer’s claim that the insured had agreed not to seek additional compensation was upheld, as the insurer failed to provide evidence of such an agreement. This ruling highlights the importance of clear, written contractual terms and the burden on parties to prove their assertions.

9. Cassation Case No. 204199: Brokerage Commission and Trade License Requirement

• Legal Issue: This case addresses whether a broker has a legally enforceable right to claim commission if they did not possess a valid trade license at the time the brokerage service was rendered. This highlights the intersection of commercial law, regulatory compliance, and the right to litigation.
• Key Legal Rules/Principles:
  • Commercial Code Article 58 and 59(2) (and references to Old/New Commercial Code Articles): These articles recognize brokerage as a professional commercial activity undertaken for profit. This places brokerage within the regulated sphere of commercial transactions.
  • Civil Procedure Code Article 33(1), (2), (3) and 231(1/a): These articles establish the fundamental requirement that a party must have a legally recognized right or interest to file a claim. Critically, the court has an ex officio duty (i.e., on its own motion) to examine this jurisdictional prerequisite. This ensures that only legally recognized claims are adjudicated.
  • Civil Procedure Code Articles 244(2) and 245(1): These govern preliminary objections, including those related to the right to sue, and grant the court discretion to rule on such objections.
  • Cassation Ruling (Cassation Case No. 119272, 2009 E.C.): This crucial prior ruling established a precedent: for an individual engaged in a commercial activity for profit to receive legal protection (including the right to claim payment for services), they must be registered as a merchant and obtain a trade license in accordance with the law. This emphasizes the principle of legality and the regulatory framework governing commercial activities.
• Cassation Division Ruling: The Cassation Division ruled that an individual providing brokerage services without a valid trade license at the time the service was rendered does not have a legally protected right to claim commission. The court reversed the lower court’s decision, which had wrongly concluded that the absence of a trade license does not bar the right to sue. The ruling firmly establishes that brokerage, as a regulated commercial activity, must be conducted in compliance with all legal requirements, including possessing a valid trade license, for the services rendered to be legally enforceable through litigation. This decision reinforces the importance of regulatory compliance for valid commercial transactions.

10. Cassation Case No. 178414: Usurious Loans and Cheque Enforceability

• Legal Issue: This case examines the legality of an “usurious loan” agreement (money lending at an excessively high interest rate) and its implications for the enforceability of a cheque issued as collateral for such a loan. This involves an analysis of criminal law provisions on usury alongside civil law principles on interest rates and commercial law on negotiable instruments.
• Key Legal Rules/Principles:
  • Criminal Code Article 712 (Usury): This article defines usury as lending money at an interest rate exceeding the legally permitted maximum, specifically when exploiting the debtor’s vulnerable circumstances (destitution, weakness, financial difficulties, lack of experience, or skill). The court’s emphasis on proving these “exploitative circumstances,” beyond just a high interest rate, is critical. It distinguishes between a high but agreed-upon interest and predatory lending.
  • Civil Code Article 2479(1) & (3): This article sets the maximum legal interest rate for loans between non-banks at 12% per annum. Crucially, it provides a remedy for agreements exceeding this rate: the debtor is only obligated to pay 9% per annum, and such an agreement does not invalidate the underlying loan. This civil provision offers a protective mechanism without nullifying the entire loan.
  • Commercial Code Article 827(a), 854: These articles reinforce that a cheque is primarily a payment instrument, designed to facilitate transactions, and is generally autonomous from the underlying transaction once properly issued. It’s not inherently proof of a loan but an order to pay.
  • Commercial Code Article 717: This article specifies valid defenses for a cheque drawer, which typically include issues related to the cheque itself (e.g., forgery, formal defects) or personal relationships (e.g., fraud in the inducement), but generally not the unenforceability of the underlying transaction unless it directly impacts the cheque’s validity or the bearer’s good faith.
  • Burden of Proof (Evidence Law): The fundamental principle that the party asserting a fact bears the responsibility of proving it with admissible evidence is highlighted here. The court notes that a party’s own testimony without corroborating evidence is generally considered weak, emphasizing the need for robust evidence to substantiate claims, especially serious ones like usury.
• Cassation Division Ruling: The Cassation Division reversed the lower courts’ finding of usury, asserting that they erred by concluding the loan was usurious without sufficient evidence to prove the exploitative circumstances required by Criminal Code Article 712(1). The court clarified that merely having a high interest rate (exceeding the 12% civil limit) does not invalidate the loan agreement; instead, Civil Code Article 2479(3) mandates reducing the interest to 9% per annum. The cheques were deemed valid payment instruments, and the respondent failed to provide compelling evidence of usury or that the principal had been repaid. Consequently, the respondent was ordered to repay the proven principal amount with 9% annual interest from the date the case was filed. This ruling underscores the strict requirements for proving criminal usury and the civil law’s approach to excessive interest rates.

Conclusion

The selection of cassation decisions from Volume 25 offers invaluable insights into the dynamic interpretation and application of Ethiopian business and insurance laws. These rulings demonstrate the Cassation Division’s commitment to ensuring legal certainty, promoting fair commercial practices, and safeguarding public interests. Key themes emerging from these cases include:

1. Strict Interpretation of Prescription Periods: The courts consistently emphasize that limitation periods are fundamental to legal certainty, and their commencement points are carefully defined based on when a right becomes exercisable, particularly in insurance subrogation claims.
2. Protection of Third Parties in Insurance: Decisions underscore the public policy objective of protecting third-party victims in motor insurance, ensuring that insurers fulfill their primary obligations irrespective of the insured’s policy breaches, while still allowing insurers recourse against their own insured.
3. Balancing Formality and Commercial Reality: The rulings on “blank cheques” illustrate a nuanced approach where strict formal requirements for negotiable instruments are balanced with the realities of commercial practice and the principle of freedom of contract, provided key elements are met at the point of presentation.
4. Adherence to International Conventions: The case concerning international air cargo clearly mandates the supremacy and strict application of ratified international treaties like the Montreal Convention, including specific notice requirements and liability limits.
5. Upholding Contractual Autonomy and Risk Allocation: The enforceability of “Excess” clauses in insurance policies reinforces the principle of contractual freedom and the importance of clearly agreed-upon risk-sharing mechanisms between contracting parties.
6. Importance of Regulatory Compliance: The decision on brokerage commissions highlights the critical role of licensing and regulatory compliance for the legal enforceability of commercial activities, emphasizing that engaging in regulated professions requires adherence to statutory prerequisites.
7. Evidentiary Standards and Good Faith: Cases involving usurious loans and trade mark similarity consistently underscore the importance of robust evidence and objective assessment, rather than mere presumption, for substantiating claims and ensuring just outcomes.

Collectively, these decisions from Cassation Decisions Volume 25 contribute significantly to the clarity and predictability of Ethiopian commercial and insurance law, serving as vital precedents for courts, legal practitioners, businesses, and individuals operating within the jurisdiction. They reflect a judiciary that strives to interpret laws coherently, considering both textual provisions and underlying legal principles to foster a stable and equitable legal environment.