The Jurisdiction of the Cassation Bench in Ethiopia

1.1 Introduction to Cassation Review

Judicial review is a fundamental principle in many legal systems, ensuring that legal decisions are made in accordance with the law and that justice is served. Within this broader concept, cassation review plays a crucial role, particularly in civil law jurisdictions like Ethiopia. Unlike an appeal, which often involves a re-evaluation of both facts and law, cassation review typically focuses on errors of law. This article delves into the intricacies of the Cassation Bench’s jurisdiction in Ethiopia, examining its evolution, scope, and the critical concept of “fundamental error of law.”

The primary purpose of a cassation court is to ensure the uniform application and interpretation of laws, thereby promoting legal certainty and consistency across the judiciary. It acts as a guardian of legal principles, correcting significant legal errors that could undermine the integrity of the justice system.

1.2 Evolution of Cassation Jurisdiction in Ethiopia

The jurisdiction of the Cassation Bench in Ethiopia has undergone significant development. Under the repealed Federal Courts Proclamation No. 25/1988, the Cassation Bench was empowered to review final decisions of the Federal High Court, Federal Supreme Court, and Regional Supreme Court Cassation Benches that contained “fundamental errors of law.”

The current Federal Courts Proclamation No. 1234/2013 has further elaborated this jurisdiction, expanding the detailed list of reviewable instances from three to nine. However, from a practical perspective, this expansion has served more to clarify rather than broaden the actual scope of the Bench’s power. Many of the issues now explicitly mentioned in the new proclamation were, in fact, already being reviewed by the Cassation Bench under the previous law by referencing constitutional provisions.

According to Article 10 of Federal Courts Proclamation No. 1234/2013, the Federal Supreme Court has the power to review the following cases in cassation where there is a fundamental error of law:

• Final decisions rendered by the Federal High Court on appeal.
• Final decisions rendered by the Federal Supreme Court’s Appellate Bench.
• Final decisions rendered by the Regional Supreme Court Cassation Bench concerning Article 2, Sub-articles (4)(a) and (h) of the Proclamation.
• Final decisions rendered by the Regional Supreme Court Cassation Bench concerning Article 2, Sub-article (4)(b) of the Proclamation, where the cases have national significance for the public interest.
• Final decisions rendered by Regional Supreme Courts or Regional High Courts on federal matters under their delegated constitutional powers.
• Final decisions rendered by the Addis Ababa or Dire Dawa City Courts.
• Final decisions rendered by any body or institution legally authorized to adjudicate.
• Final decisions rendered through alternative dispute resolution mechanisms on matters that could have been heard by a Federal Court, subject to relevant legal provisions.
• Matters specified in other laws.

Article 10, which defines the Cassation Bench’s jurisdiction, identifies cases eligible for submission to the Bench, thereby delineating the scope of its judicial power. It also specifies the sufficient grounds upon which the Bench can review submitted cases (grounds for cassation review) and the remedies or judgments it can provide after review. The criteria for determining judicial jurisdiction are: 1) the decision-making bodies, and 2) the finality of the decision. The criterion for reviewing cases in cassation is a fundamental error of law. Regarding the remedies the Bench can provide, Article 10 generally indicates that the Bench has the power to “review” without explicitly detailing the types of remedies. We will examine all these aspects in light of the binding legal interpretations provided by the Bench itself.

1.3 Decision-Making Bodies Subject to Cassation Review

The question of which decision-making bodies’ decisions can be subjected to cassation review has evolved. Under the previous proclamation, only federal and regional courts were specified. Accordingly, the Federal High Court, Federal Supreme Court (Appellate Jurisdiction), and Regional Supreme Court Cassation Benches (of course Regional Lower Courts are also subject to review, but after final decision is rendered by the Regional Cassation Bench) were the sole legally identified bodies whose decisions could be rectified through cassation.

Proclamation No. 1234 has added the Addis Ababa or Dire Dawa City Courts, bodies or institutions legally authorized to adjudicate, and arbitration tribunals to this list. Decisions rendered by these bodies were, in fact, being reviewed by the Cassation Bench even before the new proclamation. The most contentious issue concerned the final decisions of arbitration tribunals. Initially, in Cassation File No. 21849, the Bench interpreted that such decisions could not be reviewed in cassation. However, in Cassation File No. 42239, this interpretation was reversed, establishing that final decisions of arbitration tribunals could be submitted for cassation review. In Cassation File No. 155880, Volume 24, it was further clarified that this interpretation applies to domestic arbitration. Therefore, a final decision rendered by a foreign arbitration tribunal under foreign procedural law cannot be reviewed by the Cassation Bench.

Proclamation No. 1234, to some extent, reflects the Bench’s stance by stipulating that the Bench has jurisdiction only when a final decision is rendered by an arbitration tribunal in a matter that could have been heard by a Federal Court. Indeed, given that matters that could have been heard by a Federal Court might be heard by a foreign arbitration system outside Ethiopia, it is difficult to maintain that the legal interpretation in Cassation File No. 155880 remains valid.

Regarding administrative judicial bodies, the Bench used to review decisions that had no opportunity to be presented to administrative or ordinary courts. However, with the detailed provisions for the review of administrative disputes by ordinary courts under Administrative Procedure Proclamation No. 1183/2012, the number of cases that can be directly submitted to the Cassation Bench is likely to be very limited.

1.4 The Concept of “Final Decision”

As stipulated in Article 10 of Proclamation No. 1234/2012, cases falling under the jurisdiction of the Cassation Bench must have received a final decision from the lower court, either through appeal, ordinary jurisdiction, or cassation jurisdiction. The phrase “final decision” imposes two limitations on the Bench’s jurisdiction: first, for a case to be heard in cassation, it must have initially been decided by a lower court; second, this decision must be conclusive, complete, and final.

1.4.1 What Constitutes a “Decision”?

When we refer to a “decision,” it is clear that it does not include orders or rulings. Does this mean there is no cassation review for orders? In its interpretation in Cassation File No. 214219, the Cassation Bench clarified that it has the power to review not only final decisions but also judgments, rulings, and orders.

1.4.2 Legal Interpretation on Matters Without a Decision

The power granted to the Cassation Bench by Article 80(3)(a) of the Constitution and Proclamation No. 1234/2013 is to rectify any final decision containing a fundamental error of law. In this regard, for a case to be heard in cassation, it must first have a decision from the lower court. Without a decision, a fundamental error of law cannot be ascertained. For instance, if a lower court issues a ruling solely on a preliminary objection without delving into the merits of the case, and a cassation appeal is filed against this ruling, the Cassation Bench’s power is limited to determining whether a fundamental error of law was committed in the ruling. It does not have the power to hear arguments and decide on the main issue. Even if the conclusion and legal interpretation that could be reached on the main issue are known in advance, “predicting” the outcome before a decision is rendered, thereby violating the parties’ right to be heard, is outside the Bench’s constitutional jurisdiction.

However, in Cassation File No. 98099, Volume 16, the Bench disregarded the limitations placed on its jurisdiction by law and the Constitution, rendering a decision on a matter that had not received a judgment. Briefly, the background of the case is as follows: The applicants filed a lawsuit in the Adama Woreda Court, claiming that the respondent had unlawfully terminated their employment contracts before their retirement age, stating that the Council of Ministers had decided to protect their pension rights under Article 17 of Proclamation No. 714/2003, and sought various payments. The respondent, in its defense, argued that the applicants’ pension rights were protected by the Council of Ministers’ decision under the cited proclamation, and therefore, there was no legal basis to pay severance or compensation to employees dismissed in this manner, requesting the dismissal of the lawsuit.

After reviewing the Council of Ministers’ decision, the Woreda Court concluded that the applicants were governed by Government Employees Proclamation No. 714/2003 and that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, dismissing the lawsuit by ruling. Dissatisfied with the ruling, the applicants appealed to the Adama Special Zone High Court, which upheld the dismissal. They then filed a cassation appeal with the Regional Cassation Bench. After hearing arguments from both sides, the Regional Cassation Bench noted that the applicants’ claim was that they were forced to retire before their retirement age, indicating that the matter could not be heard in court from the outset. It upheld the lower court’s ruling, changing the reasoning but affirming the outcome.

Finally, the applicants filed a cassation appeal with the Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench. The Bench concluded that the lawsuit could be heard in court and that the Bench had jurisdiction to hear the matter, finding that the ruling contained a fundamental error of law. If the lower court’s ruling is overturned, it is clear that the file should be returned to the Adama Woreda Court to decide on the merits, as the issue of whether the termination of the employment contract was legal or not has not yet been decided. Conversely, there is no basis for providing a legal interpretation on the legality of the employment contract termination without a decision on the matter. However, the Bench exceeded its judicial jurisdiction and dismissed the relief sought by the applicants in the lower court. This approach violates the principle of jurisdictional limitation and contradicts procedural law. Yet, this contradiction was not acknowledged; instead, procedural law was cited as a reason to strengthen the Bench’s position. The commentary on this point reads as follows:

“…the applicants did not present a clear rebuttal to the respondent’s argument that they were dismissed from work under Article 19(7) of Proclamation No. 714/2003 and were receiving their pension benefits. Furthermore, the litigation process does not show that a decision given by a competent body in this regard was questioned and rejected according to the procedure. Therefore, it was found that making the parties litigate on whether the respondent’s action was legal or not and its outcome was not in line with the objective of the procedural law, and thus, it was appropriate for this bench to reach a conclusion in this regard.” (Emphasis added)

1.4.3 The “Final” Aspect of the Decision

For an appeal to be eligible for cassation, in addition to being a matter decided by a lower court, the decision must be final. Neither the old Proclamation No. 25/88 nor the current Proclamation No. 1234/2013 defines what “final decision” means. When an appellate court fully affirms or reverses a lower court’s decision, it is not difficult to determine the finality of the decision based on the identity of the appealing party. The fundamental point is that, in principle, a litigant should not have the right to appeal more than once on a matter that has not been fully altered or amended by an appeal filed by the opposing party. However, if the appeal is partially affirmed or amended, it becomes difficult to determine the Cassation Bench’s jurisdiction under Article 10(1) and (2). This very point was raised in Cassation File No. 61480, Volume 13, where the lower court’s decision was partially amended, making it final. However, the Bench did not provide a solution for how the collateral issues that might arise from such a legal interpretation would be resolved.

The case originated from a dispute in the Tigray Region’s Woreda Court, where the applicant was the defendant and the respondent was the plaintiff. The Woreda Court fully accepted the respondent’s claim, ordering the applicant to pay 213,450 Birr. The applicant, dissatisfied with the decision, filed an appeal with the Mekelle Zone High Court. The High Court, without changing the lower court’s decision regarding the applicant’s liability, reduced the amount to be paid to the respondent by approximately half, ordering the applicant to pay 123,450 Birr.

The applicant, still dissatisfied, filed a cassation petition with the Regional Supreme Court Cassation Bench. The Regional Cassation Bench noted that the lower courts had given different decisions on the matter and stated that the applicant could not file a cassation petition without a final decision, closing the file. The Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench, after examining whether there was a “final” judgment in light of the Regional Courts Establishment Proclamation, concluded that since the Woreda and High Courts had given similar decisions regarding the applicant’s liability, the matter could be considered to have received a final decision.

As attempted to be explained above, the Bench’s legal interpretation does not provide a solution for collateral issues. The High Court’s amended decision is final for the applicant but not for the respondent. The decision reduced the amount awarded to the respondent by the lower court by almost half. If the respondent is dissatisfied with the decision, they can appeal to the Regional Supreme Court, not to the Cassation Bench. This would lead to the same matter being heard simultaneously by the Regional Supreme Court and the Regional Cassation Bench. In Cassation File No. 61480, this point was not thoroughly examined. In this regard, the Bench’s decision itself did not provide a final resolution regarding the final judgment.

Sometimes, a lower court’s decision, even if affirmed or reversed on appeal, may not become a final judgment due to the nature of the case. This occurs when the appeal itself is not appealable from the outset. For example, Article 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code stipulates that there is no appeal against orders. If an appeal is filed against an order listed under this provision and the appeal is dismissed, the appellate court’s decision cannot be considered a final judgment for the purpose of cassation appeal, as the matter was not legally permitted to be appealed in the first place.

Article 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not list an order for the defendant to present a defense under Article 141(1) as an unappealable order. Other provisions also do not explicitly state whether an appeal can be filed against such orders. However, in Cassation File No. 74041, Volume 13, the Cassation Bench, interpreting Articles 184 and 185 of the Criminal Procedure Code in conjunction, ruled that a defendant cannot appeal an order to present a defense. Even so, if an appeal is filed against such an order and it is upheld, the decision upholding it is not eligible for cassation review as a final judgment, because the matter was not legally permitted to be appealed from the outset.

Similarly, in criminal cases, if a judgment is rendered in the absence of the defendant and the defendant does not successfully apply to have the case heard in their presence, the judgment rendered in their absence cannot be considered a final judgment and rectified in cassation.

Cases originating from regions can be reviewed in cassation only if the Regional Supreme Court has rendered a final decision after hearing them in its ordinary or appellate jurisdiction. If the case type is regional or simultaneously regional and federal, a decision rendered by the Regional Supreme Court on appeal is not final. It becomes final only after being reviewed by the Regional Supreme Court Cassation Bench.

In Cassation File Nos. 94102, Volume 16, and 94869, Volume 16, labor disputes heard in regions were considered final judgments and reviewed by the Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench, which was a contested issue that received a resolution. Accordingly, a labor dispute originating from a region is not eligible to be directly submitted to the Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench before being presented to the Regional Supreme Court Cassation Bench (if such a bench is established in the region). In Cassation File No. 94102, Volume 16, the case was initially heard by the Jimma City Woreda Court. The applicant, who was the defendant in the lower court, appealed the decision to the Jimma Zone High Court, but the lower court’s decision was upheld. Subsequently, the applicant sought rectification of a legal error from the Federal Cassation Bench. However, the case was rejected, stating that it was not eligible for direct review by the Federal Cassation Bench without first being presented to the Regional Supreme Court Cassation Bench for a final decision.

In Cassation File No. 94869, Volume 16, the case began at the East Oromia Labor and Social Affairs Board. The Board dismissed some of the claims filed by the respondents and other employees due to prescription and others due to lack of jurisdiction. Dissatisfied with the decision, the respondents appealed to the Regional Supreme Court, which reversed the ruling and returned the file to the Board for a decision on the merits. The applicant filed a cassation appeal against the decision of the Regional Supreme Court. However, the appeal was rejected, stating that the applicant could not be heard by the Federal Cassation Bench without first filing a cassation appeal with the Regional Supreme Court Cassation Bench.

Two reasons were given for the similar legal interpretation in both files: first, labor disputes, unlike other disputes, should not be divided into regional and federal based on the identity of the litigant; second, regional courts do not hear labor disputes under their delegated powers.

In Cassation File No. 94102, the applicant should have first filed an appeal with the Regional Cassation Bench. However, in Cassation File No. 94869, since the case originated from the Regional Labor and Social Affairs Board, there was no legal basis for it to be heard by the Regional Cassation Bench. As clearly stipulated in Articles 140(1) and 154(1) of the Labor Proclamation No. 377/96, which was applicable when the decision was rendered, any decision given by a permanent or temporary board is appealable to the Federal High Court. It is clear that the Regional Supreme Court Appellate Bench heard the Board’s decision on appeal under its delegated powers. Article 10(1) of Proclamation No. 25/88, applicable when the decision was rendered, stipulates that the Federal Cassation Bench, not the Regional Cassation Bench, has the power to hear cases where the Federal High Court has rendered a final decision on appeal. Therefore, there was no basis for the case to be heard by the Regional Cassation Bench. Although the Bench’s decision was incorrect and concerned a matter falling under its jurisdiction even without further legal amendment, Proclamation No. 1234 has clarified and stipulated it in a way that removes the ambiguity. Accordingly, Article 10 states that a case where the Regional Supreme Court or Regional High Courts have rendered a final decision on a federal matter under their delegated constitutional powers can be reviewed in cassation.

1.4.4 Order Issued by the Inquiry Bench (Cassation File No. 37940)

An order issued by a three-judge Regional Supreme Court Cassation Inquiry Bench, identifying points to be clarified by the main bench, cannot be considered final. In Cassation File No. 37940, the dispute originated from the lower court concerning a residential house and service quarters being common property. The Oromia Supreme Court, which heard the case on appeal, decided that they were common property. Dissatisfied with this decision, the applicant filed a cassation appeal with the Regional Supreme Court Cassation Bench.

The Cassation Inquiry Bench examined the appeal and ordered its submission for clarification on the appropriateness of declaring the service quarters as common property. While the appeal was being heard by the Regional Cassation Bench, the applicant filed a cassation appeal with the Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench concerning the main residential house. The applicant was able to file this appeal because the Inquiry Bench’s decision to submit only the service quarters for clarification was interpreted as a rejection of the appeal concerning the main house by the Regional Cassation Bench.

The Cassation Bench, after examining the applicant’s appeal, rejected it, stating that it was not eligible for cassation review as it was not based on a final judgment. The commentary on the decision stated that an order of the Inquiry Bench has a temporary effect, and the five-judge Regional Cassation Bench is not bound by the point submitted by the Inquiry Bench; it can establish issues on other points and render an appropriate decision.

1.4.5 Cross-Appeal

In Cassation File No. 204381, after a divorce between a husband and wife, both sought temporary alimony and residence. The Federal First Instance Court, not finding it necessary, rejected their requests. Both parties then filed an appeal and a cross-appeal with the Federal High Court. The High Court rejected the cross-appeal and ordered the cross-appellant to pay alimony. According to the Bench’s interpretation, the cross-appellant should then file an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, not a cassation petition with the Cassation Bench.

However, the Bench did not clarify what form a final decision would take when a cross-appeal is filed and rejected. If the cross-appellant’s appeal is rejected, the Bench’s decision is a final decision. On the other hand, if the appeal filed by the party against whom the lower court ruled is accepted, it is not yet a final decision. As is clear, in one file and judgment, there are matters that have received a final decision and those that have not. Since this is an unusual situation, the Bench should have provided an interpretation on this point.

1.4.6 File Closed Due to Non-Appearance of Appellant

If the Federal First Instance Court, dissatisfied with a ruling on a preliminary objection, files an appeal with the appellate court, and the appellate court closes the appeal file because the appellant did not appear on the scheduled hearing date, and a request to reopen the file is rejected, the next step should be to file an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, not a cassation appeal with the Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench.

Regarding this, the Bench, in its interpretation in Cassation File No. 214694, stated that the Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench can provide legal interpretations based on its cassation judicial power only when there is a fundamental error of law in final decisions, judgments, rulings, or orders. Article 2(4) of Federal Courts Proclamation No. 1234/2013 stipulates this. A final decision, according to Article 2(5) of the Proclamation, is a judgment, ruling, order, or decision rendered by a legally authorized body, institution, or through alternative dispute resolution mechanisms that resolves the matter and has completed the appeal processes. Therefore, a person can file a cassation appeal with the Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench only if the case has received a final decision, judgment, ruling, or order and has completed the appeal process.

1.5 Remedies Available in the Cassation Bench

Article 10 of Proclamation No. 1234 states that the Cassation Bench’s power is to “review” cases with a fundamental error of law in cassation. What does “power to review” mean? In other words, what remedies can the Bench provide? If there is a fundamental error, remedies derived from “reviewing” include reversal, affirmation if there is no error, and remanding the file to the lower court if further clarification is needed. Can the Bench go beyond this and render its own decision in place of the lower court’s decision? This is highly debatable. In response to this question, the Bench, in Cassation File No. 214219, provided the following legal interpretation:

“As is known from the judicial jurisprudence developed in our country’s Cassation Bench so far, the Cassation Bench’s power extends beyond correcting fundamental errors of law, reversing decisions, and remanding with issues; it also includes the power to render a new decision on the matter.”

If this is the case, then there is no difference between cassation review and appeal. Furthermore, citing its own “developed judicial jurisprudence” as a reason for a matter requiring fundamental interpretation is not very convincing.

1.6 The Concept of “Fundamental Error of Law”

One of the new changes introduced by Federal Courts Proclamation No. 1234/2012 is the definition of “fundamental error of law.” According to Article 2, Sub-article 4 of the Proclamation, “fundamental error of law” means a significant error of law that fulfills one of the conditions listed from (a) to (h) under the sub-article and distorts justice, found in final decisions, judgments, rulings, and orders that can be reviewed by the Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench under Article 10 of the Proclamation. These are:

a. Contradicting constitutional provisions; b. Misinterpreting the law or citing irrelevant law for the case; c. Deciding without establishing a relevant issue for the dispute or establishing an irrelevant issue unrelated to the dispute; d. Dismissing a matter that should have been decided judicially; e. Issuing an order in the execution process that is unrelated to the main judgment; f. Deciding without judicial power to hear and decide the matter; g. An unlawful decision issued by an administrative body or institution; h. Decisions rendered in contradiction to a binding decision of the Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench.

It is stated that a final decision cannot be said to contain a fundamental error of law merely because it contains one of the errors listed above. The decision must also contain a significant error that distorts justice. A decision can be said to contain a significant error that distorts justice if the legal error in the decision would cause significant miscarriage of justice to the appellant if not corrected by the Cassation Bench, and if correcting the decision by the Bench would result in a favorable outcome for the appellant.

Based on this definition in the Proclamation, the Cassation Bench has provided further clarifying interpretations on the cases presented to it. In this regard, the interpretations given in three files are presented below.

1.6.1 Decision with a Fundamental Error of Law

In the interpretation given in Cassation File No. 213740, a decision can be said to contain a fundamental error of law if it contradicts constitutional provisions, misinterprets the law or cites irrelevant law for the case, decides without establishing a relevant issue for the dispute or establishing an irrelevant issue unrelated to the dispute, dismisses a matter that should have been decided judicially, issues an order in the execution process that is unrelated to the main judgment, decides without judicial power to hear and decide the matter, is an unlawful decision issued by an administrative body or institution, or is rendered in contradiction to a binding decision of the Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench.

1.6.2 Contradicting Binding Legal Interpretation

In Case No. 213166, after asserting that a decision rendered in contradiction to a binding legal interpretation given by the Cassation Division constitutes a fundamental error of law, [the Bench] interpreted that a decision rendered without fully examining and weighing the arguments and evidence presented by the litigating party is a decision made in violation of the principles stipulated regarding case management, admission of evidence, and evaluation thereof. Therefore, it constitutes a fundamental error of law and should be subject to rectification.

1.6.3 Regional Supreme Court Cassation Bench Decisions

Even if a decision rendered by a Regional Supreme Court Cassation Bench contains an error, it will not be rectified by the Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench if the error does not fall under Article 10 (1/c/ and /d) of Proclamation No. 1234.

Regarding this, the Bench, in Cassation File No. 205674 and numerous other files, stated:

“The Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench shall have the power to accept and review an appeal in cassation only if the decision/order/ruling contradicts constitutional provisions, contradicts a binding decision of the Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench, or is a decision/order/ruling given by citing irrelevant law or misinterpreting the law, and the matter also concerns national interest. The provisions of Article 10 (1/c/ and /d) of the Proclamation make this clear.

Even if the decision of the Regional Supreme Court Cassation Bench, against which the cassation appeal is filed, fulfills one of the conditions listed in Article 2(4) of Proclamation No. 1234 concerning the criterion of fundamental error of law, but falls outside these three conditions, the Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench does not have the power to rectify the matter in cassation.”

1.7 Conclusion on Factual Findings

The establishment of “fundamental error of law” as a criterion for both federal and regional cassation benches indicates that their jurisdictional limit cannot extend beyond “legal issues.” In other words, the Cassation Bench cannot rectify errors committed in factual findings and evidence appraisal. The Bench clarified this point in Cassation File No. 198891 as follows:

“The Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench, under Article 80(3) of the FDRE Constitution, is empowered to review fundamental errors of law committed in final decisions, but it is not empowered to review factual findings reached after evidence appraisal.”

1.7.1 Regional Cassation Bench’s Power in Evidence Appraisal

The Regional Supreme Court Cassation Bench, beyond its power to accept and rectify fundamental errors of law in cases that have received final decisions, does not have the power to delve into factual clarification and evidence appraisal and reverse a decision of a first instance court that has the power to clarify facts and appraise evidence. If it does so, it commits a fundamental error of law. This interpretation was given in Cassation File No. 208377. For understanding, the Bench reversed the Regional Cassation Bench’s commentary, which read as follows:

“The witnesses testified that the disputed land belonged to the respondent’s (plaintiff’s) father, and the defendant, being his brother, gave it to him as a gift in 1987 E.C. and he has been holding it until now. One of the plaintiff’s witnesses testified similarly to the defendant’s witness. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming that the defendant took possession of the land by force in 2007 E.C. and sought judicial relief. The plaintiff’s witnesses testified that the defendant had been holding and cultivating the land for the past 3 years, and the defendant’s witnesses testified that he had been holding and cultivating it for more than 26 years. Since the testimony does not confirm the claim for relief from disturbance under Article 1149 of the Civil Code, the lawsuit is dismissed.”

This article has explored the nuanced and evolving jurisdiction of the Cassation Bench in Ethiopia, highlighting its critical role in ensuring legal consistency and correcting fundamental errors of law. The distinction between cassation and appeal, the definition of a “final decision,” and the precise meaning of “fundamental error of law” are all crucial elements that shape the Ethiopian judicial landscape.