Date: April 26, 2013 E.C.
Summary of Legal Principles:
Article 2179 of the Civil Code of Ethiopia explicitly states that the power to act as a representative is derived from either law or contract. Furthermore, Article 2180/1 specifies that when the power of representation is contractually based, its extent is determined by the agreement between the contracting parties.
Factual Background of the Case:
The Respondent acknowledges that the Applicant is a member of the Global Housing Cooperative. However, it is understood from the arguments presented that the Applicant’s membership originated as follows:
- The Respondent was an initial member of the cooperative.
- When housing plots were allocated for persons with disabilities, the Respondent already owned a house.
- To avoid forfeiture of the opportunity, the Respondent granted a power of attorney to the Applicant (their child), enabling the Applicant to become a member of the cooperative.
- Subsequently, the Applicant granted a power of attorney back to the Respondent for the purpose of constructing the house.
This exchange of powers of attorney confirms the existence of a contractual agreement between the Applicant and the Respondent. Based on this agreement, the Respondent received the power of attorney from the Applicant and proceeded to construct the house using their own funds and resources.
Applicant’s Claim and Lower Court’s Findings:
In the proceedings before the lower court, the Applicant did not dispute the Respondent’s account of how the Applicant became a cooperative member. Instead, the Applicant’s primary assertion was that the Respondent transferred the house using a false and fraudulent power of attorney.
However, the lower court factually established that the power of attorney in question was lawful and not fraudulent. Consequently, it is clear from the arguments that the Applicant failed to substantiate the alleged claim of fraud.
Conclusion of the Court:
Given that:
- The Respondent initially granted a power of attorney to the Applicant for cooperative membership.
- The Applicant then granted a power of attorney back to the Respondent.
- The Respondent constructed the disputed house using their own resources, funds, and labor.
It is thus established that the mere fact of the Applicant’s cooperative membership and holding of a title deed in their name is insufficient to determine ownership of the house. Therefore, the lower courts’ dismissal of the Applicant’s claim was appropriate and does not constitute a fundamental error of law.