Date: 2025-07-13 00:23:10
Case Details
Cassation Case No. 210187
Date: Hamle 28, 2014 E.C. (July 25, 2022 G.C.)
Applicant: Ato Mideksa Chiqwala and W/ro Asnakech Yigezu (represented by Yeshareg Midaqsa)
Respondent: Ato Gebreyohannes Desta
Key Legal Rule (Legal Interpretation)
While not presenting an alternative claim does not constitute a deliberate reduction or abandonment of a claim under Civil Procedure Code Article 216(2) and (3) (as per Cassation File No. 62134, Vol. 12), a claim for the return of money paid based on a contractual obligation is subject to the 10-year prescription period stipulated in Civil Code Article 1845. If a previous claim for specific performance of the same contract has been dismissed due to prescription, a subsequent claim for the return of the money paid under that contract, initiated after the 10-year period from the contract’s formation, will also be barred by prescription. Courts must identify the true basis of the claim to apply the correct prescription rule.
Summary of the Case
The respondent (plaintiff in the lower courts) filed a lawsuit on Tir 06, 2012 E.C. (January 15, 2020 G.C.), seeking the return of 155,000.00 Birr, plus 11 years of accrued interest totaling 153,450.00 Birr (grand total 308,450.00 Birr), from the applicants. The respondent claimed that the applicants had sold him a house located at House No. 981, 250 sq. meters, in Akaki Kality Sub-city, Woreda 01, Addis Ababa (registered in the name of the 1st applicant with map No. 05120) through a sales contract dated Hamle 11, 2000 E.C. (July 18, 2008 G.C.) for 155,000.00 Birr.
The respondent stated that he had previously filed a suit (File No. 80210) for specific performance of the contract (delivery of the house), but this claim was dismissed due to being filed after the 10-year prescription period. He further argued that during the previous case, the applicants had admitted their ability to return the money. As the applicants repeatedly refused to return the money, the respondent sought its return with interest.
The applicants (defendants in the lower courts) raised preliminary objections, arguing that the current claim was also barred by prescription, that the matter was res judicata under Civil Procedure Code Article 5 because the respondent had not reserved the right to claim the money in the previous specific performance suit, and that the claim was fragmented under Civil Procedure Code Article 216(4) as it could have been included in the prior lawsuit. They also argued that their alternative defense in the previous case regarding returning the money should not serve as a basis for the current claim, and that the respondent had used the house, thus losing the right to claim the money with interest.
The Federal First Instance Court rejected the preliminary objections, stating that the previous suit was for specific performance of the contract, while the current suit was for the return of money obtained through unjust enrichment due to the invalid sales contract, thus not being a re-filing of the same claim. On the merits, the First Instance Court found that since the house remained in the applicants’ possession, there was no legal reason for them to withhold the money. It ruled that the applicants must pay the respondent 308,450.00 Birr. The Federal High Court upheld this decision on appeal.
The applicants appealed to the Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench, reiterating their arguments regarding prescription (Civil Code Article 1845), fragmentation of the claim (Civil Procedure Code Article 216(4)), and the impropriety of using their alternative defense from the previous case as a basis for the current judgment. They also contested the calculation of 11 years of interest. The Cassation Bench ordered the respondent to submit a response, but the respondent failed to appear, and the case was heard in their absence.
Decision of the Cassation Bench
The Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench carefully reviewed the arguments and the records of the lower courts, focusing on the issues of prescription and fragmentation of claims.
On Fragmentation of Claim (Civil Procedure Code Article 216(2) and (3)) The Cassation Bench affirmed its previous binding interpretation (Cassation File No. 62134, Vol. 12) that the failure to present an alternative claim does not constitute a deliberate reduction or abandonment of a claim. It reasoned that both the previous claim for specific performance and the current claim for the return of money originated from the same sales contract. While specific performance is the primary remedy, a claim for cancellation of the contract and return of money can be an alternative. Therefore, the Bench found that the respondent’s current claim for the return of money was properly filed and not a fragmented claim in violation of procedural rules.
On Prescription (Civil Code Article 1845) The Cassation Bench determined that the respondent’s current claim for the return of money was based on the sales contract dated Hamle 11, 2000 E.C. (July 18, 2008 G.C.). A claim for the return of money paid under a contract is typically associated with the cancellation or termination of that contract. The applicable prescription period for claims arising from contracts is 10 years as per Civil Code Article 1845. Since the contract was made on Hamle 11, 2000 E.C., and the current suit was filed on Tir 06, 2012 E.C. (January 15, 2020 G.C.), more than 10 years had passed. The Bench emphasized that one of the purposes of prescription is to penalize negligent or dormant creditors. The lower courts’ decision, which concluded that the applicants should not unjustly enrich themselves by keeping the money, failed to consider the legal consequences of the respondent’s failure to assert their right within the prescribed time.
Therefore, the Cassation Bench concluded that the respondent’s claim was indeed barred by prescription.
Final Orders
The decisions of the Federal High Court (File No. 271488, Sene 17, 2013 E.C.) and the Federal First Instance Court (File No. 91317, Yekatit 24, 2013 E.C.) were overturned under Civil Procedure Code Article 348(1).
The respondent’s claim was dismissed as being barred by prescription.