The principle of staying the execution of a judgment due to a pending lawsuit is a specific procedural mechanism governed by Article 377 of the Civil Procedure Code. According to the binding interpretation provided by the Federal Supreme Court Cassation Division in Cassation File No. 52193, a stay of execution is only permissible when the new suit filed by the judgment debtor against the judgment creditor is directly related to the judgment currently under execution. This requirement of “relatedness” (ተያያዥነት) ensures that the execution process is not arbitrarily hindered by unrelated or frivolous claims, thereby upholding the finality and authority of judicial decisions.
The core objective of such a stay is to maintain the status quo and prevent a situation where the execution of one judgment renders a subsequent related judgment moot or results in irreparable harm. As noted in Cassation File No. 211694 and 232680, the general purpose of temporary stays and injunctions under Articles 154 and 155 is to ensure that the pending lawsuit does not become fruitless and that there remains property against which a future judgment can be executed should the plaintiff succeed. Consequently, a court will typically only grant a stay of execution if the applicant can demonstrate that they would suffer irreparable damage and that the outcome of the pending suit would be significantly undermined if the execution proceeds immediately.
However, the mere existence of a pending lawsuit does not automatically entitle a debtor to a stay of execution. In Cassation File No. 125636, the court clarified that the filing of another suit by the judgment debtor against the judgment creditor does not impose a mandatory obligation on the execution court to halt the process. The court must exercise its discretion by evaluating the nature of the relationship between the two suits and whether the pending claim has the potential to set off or substantively affect the rights established in the initial judgment. If the pending suit is found to be unrelated, or if it involves different third parties, it cannot be used as a valid ground to block the execution of a clearly established right. For example, Cassation File No. 129104 established that an injunction issued in a suit filed by the judgment debtor against a third party cannot be used to prevent the execution of a judgment concerning the transfer of property ownership.
Furthermore, the integrity of the execution process requires that any stay or injunction be formally processed and recognized. Cassation File No. 108327 highlights that a stay of execution cannot be assumed simply because an injunction was issued; the stay must be properly communicated to be effective. Additionally, once an injunction is lifted by an appellate court, the execution court has the authority to render the previous stay order ineffective, as emphasized in Cassation File No. 230795. Ultimately, the application of Article 377, as interpreted in File No. 52193, strikes a balance between the necessity of enforcing final judgments and the equitable need to pause such enforcement when a closely related and unresolved legal dispute could fundamentally alter the legal standing between the same parties.