Introduction: The Art and Science of Statutory Interpretation
Law, like any literary work, is a composition written by an authorized body. In principle, it is presumed that any literate citizen (without requiring professional qualification or training) can read and understand this law. However, written law differs significantly from other compositions, possessing its own unique characteristics, style, and writing system. Consequently, a uniform and consistent understanding does not exist among all citizens, let alone among the bodies that write, enforce, and interpret the law. The linguistic ambiguities inherent in legal texts inevitably lead to differences in understanding. To resolve these differences, and to ensure that the interpretation given by one branch of government is binding on the disagreeing parties, courts are established as institutions with legal and constitutional recognition and competence.
Yet, even a court, though seemingly a single voice, does not possess a single mind. A single provision can convey different, sometimes even disparate, messages when interpreted by federal and regional courts, by higher and lower courts, and even by different benches within those courts. While such disjuncture is not constant, its occurrence is inevitable. This inevitability stems not only from the errors and omissions of the reader (the judge) but also from the unique and complex nature of the text being read (the written law).
The Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench, as the ultimate and highest interpreter of law in Ethiopia, has a role that extends beyond merely interpreting what the law says in each case presented to it. It is also expected to provide guidance to lower courts on what interpretive methodologies they should follow. This not only promotes consistency but also significantly eases the workload of the Cassation Bench itself. For example, in employer-employee cases, if the Cassation Bench were to provide direction on the interpretive methods lower courts should use, beyond merely interpreting each provision, the number of fundamental errors of law would decrease. Especially in Ethiopia, where there is no detailed law governing interpretive methodologies (apart from a few specific provisions), the Cassation Bench must consider it its primary role to provide clear guidance to lower courts on the interpretive methods they should adopt.
While a prominent style concerning legal interpretive methodologies is not consistently found in the Cassation Bench’s decisions to date, the methods employed by the court in certain decisions have been generally articulated. Some of these are presented below, without additional elaboration beyond what is stated in the decisions themselves.
Specific Rules of Interpretation Applied by the Cassation Bench
Ejusdem Generis (Of the Same Kind)
This rule of construction states that where a law lists specific classes of persons or things and then refers to them in general, the general statements only apply to the same kind of persons or things specifically listed.
- Cassation File No. 79476, Volume 18: “It is clear that the phrase ‘…or other payments…’ within the provision is a general term. In such a case, it is appropriate to ask what the legislator intended to indicate by using this term, and the answer can be found based on the principles of legal interpretation. Accordingly, accepted principles of legal interpretation indicate that by examining the categories of words listed before the general term, the general term is interpreted to have been placed there to include other unlisted words of a similar kind.”
Strict Interpretation
This principle dictates that statutes, particularly those that are penal or that infringe upon rights, should be interpreted narrowly, giving effect only to what is explicitly stated, without extending their meaning by implication.
- Cassation File No. 98263, Volume 17: “To prevent the execution of a case decided by judgment, a settlement agreement made between the judgment creditor and the judgment debtor, when it does not meet the strict requirements stipulated in Civil Procedure Code Article 276 and Civil Procedure Code Article 277(1), will not have legal effect and applicability. Following a strict rule of legal interpretation that confirms this is essential to ensure that the judgment execution system operates effectively and efficiently.”
Narrow Interpretation
A specific application of strict interpretation, where the meaning of a term or provision is confined to its most restricted sense.
- Cassation File No. 50985, Volume 13: “The power of attorney (mandate) shall be interpreted narrowly, not broadly.”
Literal Interpretation / Plain Meaning Rule
This rule holds that words in a statute are to be given their ordinary and natural meaning, and if the language is clear and unambiguous, courts should apply it without further inquiry. However, the Cassation Bench also recognizes its limitations.
- Cassation File No. 57632, Volume 12 (Dissenting Opinion of 2 Judges): “…To reach the conclusion we have reached above, in addition to the reasons we have already explained, we believe that the wording and literal reading of Article 9 of Proclamation No. 25/1988 must be considered.”
- Cassation File No. 101271, Volume 16: “To understand the fundamental nature and purpose of Article 44, Sub-article 1 of Proclamation No. 650/2001, as well as the legal effect the provision has on the appeal rights of academic staff, merely looking at the isolated literal reading of the provision is not sufficient.”
Purposive Interpretation
This method focuses on discerning the underlying purpose or intent of the legislature when enacting a statute, rather than strictly adhering to its literal wording, especially when the literal meaning leads to an absurd or unjust result.
- Cassation File No. 93137, Volume 15: “The primary objective of Civil Procedure Code Article 6 is to restore justice that has been distorted due to false evidence, bribery, and similar criminal acts, when appropriate conditions and facts are confirmed to exist.”
A Contrario Reading / Argumentum a Contrario
This rule of interpretation states that if a legal provision explicitly applies to one situation, it implicitly excludes the opposite situation.
- Cassation File No. 46386, Volume 13: “The a contrario reading of Civil Code Article 2149 informs us that a decision rendered in a criminal case has relevance and competence as evidence in a civil case concerning the same matter.”
Inverse Reading (Glibach Nibab)
This refers to deriving meaning from a provision by considering its inverse or opposite implication, similar to a contrario.
- Cassation File No. 49635, Volume 12: “As stipulated in Civil Code Article 2278, a buyer who takes delivery of a sold item has an immediate obligation to pay the sale price, and the inverse reading of the same provision explains that a seller who has not been paid the sale price has the right to retain the sold item in their possession without delivering it…”
Contradictory Reading and Interpretation (Teqarno Nibab)
This term, similar to a contrario, is used to denote an interpretation that derives meaning by considering the opposite of what is explicitly stated or implied.
- Cassation File No. 54129, Volume 11: “It can be understood from the a contrario reading and interpretation (‘Acontrario reading and Interpretation’) of Civil Code Article 3205 and Civil Code Article 3206 that the administrative body’s relationship is limited to the contractor when the administrative body claims its rights or fulfills its obligations to the contractor.”
Combined Reading / Harmonious Construction
This rule requires that different provisions within the same statute, or even different statutes, be read together and interpreted in a way that gives effect to all of them, avoiding contradictions.
- Cassation File No. 86398, Volume 17: “Although these provisions do not explicitly state that the opposing party to the objection must submit a written response and defense evidence, beyond stating that the objection and the copy of the evidence must be delivered to the opposing party, it can be understood from the combined reading of Civil Procedure Code Article 234 and Articles 360(1) and (2) that the opposing party to the objection must submit their defense response and evidence to the objection filed against them.”
Contextual Interpretation
This method emphasizes interpreting a provision within its broader statutory context, considering other related provisions, the overall structure of the law, and its legislative scheme.
- Cassation File No. 67280, Volume 11: “For the legislator to separate educational qualification and work experience and give them equal value in one article, and then place an article with a similar spirit in the subsequent provision, is not only meaningless but also does not follow the contextual interpretation of laws; it is not a method of interpretation that enables the proclamation to have effect and be implemented positively.”
General vs. Special Law (Lex Specialis Derogat Legi Generali)
This fundamental principle states that when there is a conflict between a general law and a special law, the special law prevails over the general law.
- Cassation File No. 39803, Volume 8: “However, regarding the gift of immovable property, specifically governed by Civil Code Articles 2443 and 881 mentioned above, it is not stated that this procedure must be followed. It can be understood from the principle of legal interpretation that when there is an inconsistency or difference between a general law and a special law, the special law shall prevail over the general (‘The Special prevail over the general’).”
- Cassation File No. 24703, Volume 7: “Since the special law, the Commercial Code, specifically governs the relationship between the parties, and it can be understood from the principle of legal interpretation that when there is an inconsistency between a general law and a special law, the special law shall prevail (‘The special prevails over the general’)…”
Conclusion: The Imperative of Methodological Guidance
The Cassation Bench’s role as the supreme interpreter of law extends beyond merely resolving specific disputes; it encompasses the crucial task of guiding lower courts on sound interpretive methodologies. While the examples above demonstrate the application of various established rules of interpretation, a more explicit and systematic articulation of these rules by the Cassation Bench would significantly enhance consistency and predictability across the Ethiopian judiciary.
The absence of a detailed, codified law on statutory interpretation in Ethiopia places a greater burden on the highest court to provide clear methodological guidance. Such guidance would not only reduce fundamental errors of law in lower courts but also empower judges to approach complex legal texts with greater confidence and analytical rigor. As the Cassation Bench itself cautioned in Cassation File No. 80350, Volume 14:
“However, it is evident that if the spirit of this binding legal interpretation of the Cassation Bench is not carefully considered and understood, it will inevitably lead to outcomes that are inconsistent with the purpose and spirit of the law.”
This highlights the ongoing need for clear, well-reasoned interpretive guidance to ensure that the law is applied not just correctly, but also in a manner that aligns with its intended purpose and promotes the overarching goals of justice and legal certainty.