Introduction: The Role and Limits of Legal Dictionaries in Judicial Decisions
Legal dictionaries serve as valuable resources for courts, providing definitions and explanations of legal terms. However, it is crucial to recognize that the definitions found in legal dictionaries and the legal interpretations given to words by a court in a specific case, based on the law, do not necessarily have the same content. Therefore, a court should not base its decision solely on “what a legal dictionary says,” unless it is merely for clarification or as a starting point for analysis.
The role of foreign legal dictionaries, in particular, is very limited for domestic courts in their decision-making process. Foreign dictionaries reflect the definitions of legal terms specific to their respective countries and legal systems, and thus cannot serve as substitute definitions for our country’s legal terms. Furthermore, the definition given to a single word can vary depending on the type of dictionary. Despite these caveats, the Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench is observed to render decisions by utilizing foreign legal dictionaries, especially “Black’s Law Dictionary.” This chapter will explore this phenomenon, examining specific instances and critically analyzing the implications of such a practice for judicial interpretation in Ethiopia.
The Trend: Black’s Law Dictionary in Ethiopian Cassation Judgments
Black’s Law Dictionary is one of the most widely recognized and authoritative legal dictionaries in common law jurisdictions, particularly in the United States. Its definitions are often cited in legal arguments and judicial opinions in those systems. However, its direct application in a civil law system like Ethiopia, with its unique legal history and linguistic context, warrants careful consideration.
Despite the general principles cautioning against over-reliance on foreign legal dictionaries, the Ethiopian Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench has, in several instances, based its decisions, in whole or in part, on definitions provided by Black’s Law Dictionary. Four such cases are highlighted below:
Defining “Appeal”
Cassation File No. 69603, Volume 13: In this case, the definition of the Amharic word “ይግባኝ” (yigbañ), meaning “appeal,” was taken from Black’s Law Dictionary to render a decision.
“The renowned Black’s Law Dictionary defines the word ‘appeal’ as ‘A proceeding undertaken to have a decision reconsidered by bringing it to a higher authority, especially, the submission of a lower court’s or agency’s decision to a higher court for review and possible reversal.’ From this, it can be understood that ‘appeal’ refers to a system in which a judgment or decision rendered by a lower body is challenged by filing a petition with a higher court, allowing the lower court’s judgment/decision to be re-examined, clarified, or possibly altered.”
- Critique: While this definition of “appeal” is generally consistent across many legal systems, relying solely on a foreign dictionary for such a fundamental procedural term, rather than deriving its meaning from domestic procedural codes and established jurisprudence, can be seen as an unnecessary externalization of interpretive authority.
Defining “Holder”
Cassation File No. 92020, Volume 15: In this case, the English word “holder” was taken as an equivalent for the Amharic word “ጠባቂ” (ṭebaḳī), meaning “keeper” or “custodian,” and a decision was rendered based on the definition provided by Black’s Law Dictionary.
“The Amharic equivalent English word is stated as ‘holder,’ and one of the definitions given to this word in legal dictionaries, as shown by the renowned Black’s Law Dictionary, is ‘a person who possesses or uses property.’ From this, it can be understood that the word ‘keeper’ refers to a person who possesses the car for their own benefit.”
- Critique: This instance is more problematic. The Amharic word “ጠባቂ” (ṭebaḳī) carries connotations of custody, guardianship, or keeping something for another’s benefit, which might not perfectly align with the broader definition of “holder” as merely possessing or using property. Using a foreign dictionary to bridge a linguistic gap between Amharic and English, and then deriving a legal conclusion from that foreign definition, risks misinterpreting the original Amharic legal concept.
Distinguishing “Lawful” and “Legal”
Cassation File No. 43226, Volume 12: In this case, a decision was rendered based on the explanation provided in Black’s Law Dictionary regarding the distinction between “lawful” and “legal.”
“In legal studies, there is a significant conceptual difference between an unlawful contract and an illegal contract, as expressed in Black’s Law Dictionary: ‘The principal distinction between the terms of lawful and legal is the former contemplates the Substance of a law, the latter the form of law… To say an act ‘lawful’ implies that it is authorized, sanctioned or at any rate not forbidden by law. To say it is ‘legal’ implies that it is done or performed in accordance with the forms and usage of law, or in a technical manner; in this sense illegal approaches the meaning of invalid.'”
- Critique: While this distinction is well-established in common law, its direct application to Ethiopian contract law, which has a civil law foundation, might not always be appropriate. Ethiopian legal concepts of validity, legality, and unlawfulness are derived from its own Civil Code and jurisprudence. Importing a nuanced distinction from a foreign common law dictionary without careful consideration of its fit within the domestic legal framework could lead to unintended consequences or introduce complexities not originally envisioned by the Ethiopian legislator.
Defining “Performance Bond”
Cassation File No. 47004, Volume 13: In this case, a decision was rendered based on the definition of “Performance bond” from Black’s Law Dictionary.
“Black’s Law Dictionary defines ‘Performance bond’ as ‘a bond given by a surety to ensure the timely performance of contract, a third parties agreement to guarantee the completion of construction contract upon the default of the general contractor. Also termed as completion bond, surety bond contract bond.’ It also defines ‘Suretyship bond’ as ‘a contractual arrangement between the surety, the principal and oblige where by the surety agrees to protect the oblige if he default in performing the principals’’ contractual obligation.’ ‘The bond is the instrument which binds the surety.’ From this, it can be easily understood that a performance bond document is a document given to ensure the performance of a contract within the time specified in the contract.”
- Critique: “Performance bond” is a technical term often used in international commercial transactions, and its definition might be more standardized across jurisdictions. However, even here, the primary source for its meaning in an Ethiopian context should ideally be domestic commercial law or established commercial practice, rather than solely a foreign dictionary.
Critical Analysis: Implications of External Lexicography
The reliance on Black’s Law Dictionary by the Ethiopian Cassation Bench raises several important conceptual and practical implications:
Judicial Interpretation vs. Lexicographical Definition
A court’s primary role is to interpret the law within its specific legal and social context. A dictionary provides a general, often decontextualized, definition of a word. Judicial interpretation, on the other hand, involves discerning legislative intent, considering the purpose of the law, and ensuring consistency with the broader legal framework and principles of justice. Relying on a dictionary as the sole or primary basis for a legal interpretation risks substituting a general linguistic meaning for a precise legal meaning derived from domestic legal sources.
Contextual Relevance and Legal Transplants
Ethiopian law, while influenced by foreign models, has developed its own unique characteristics and interpretations. Black’s Law Dictionary reflects the legal concepts and nuances of common law systems, particularly that of the United States. Uncritically importing definitions from such a dictionary can lead to the unintended transplantation of foreign legal concepts or distinctions that may not align with the spirit, purpose, or existing jurisprudence of Ethiopian law. This can create inconsistencies and confusion within the domestic legal system.
Impact on Clarity and Accessibility
As discussed in the previous chapter, the intermingling of Amharic and English in judgments already poses challenges to clarity and accessibility for Amharic-speaking litigants. When the very definitions of key legal terms are sourced from a foreign English dictionary, it further alienates those who do not have access to or familiarity with such resources. This undermines the principle of judicial transparency and the right of citizens to fully comprehend the judgments that affect their lives.
Dictionaries as Supplementary Aids, Not Determinative Sources
Legal dictionaries can be valuable as supplementary aids. They can help in understanding the general meaning of a term, especially if it’s a technical or foreign-origin word. They can also serve as a starting point for research or to confirm a common understanding. However, they should never be the determinative source for a legal interpretation, particularly when domestic legal sources (statutes, legislative history, previous domestic jurisprudence, and legal scholarly works on Ethiopian law) are available. The primary interpretive authority must remain within the domestic legal framework.
Conclusion: Towards Principled Use of Extrinsic Aids
The observed practice of the Ethiopian Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench in extensively citing Black’s Law Dictionary, sometimes as the sole basis for defining legal terms, warrants critical reflection. While a general understanding of legal terminology from various sources is beneficial, judicial decisions must ultimately be grounded in the domestic legal context, legislative intent, and established Ethiopian jurisprudence.
To enhance the rigor and accessibility of its judgments, the Cassation Bench should:
- Prioritize Domestic Legal Sources: Emphasize deriving legal meanings from Ethiopian statutes, constitutional provisions, and the court’s own established precedents.
- Use Dictionaries as Supplementary Tools: Employ legal dictionaries, including foreign ones, strictly as supplementary aids for general understanding or initial conceptualization, rather than as definitive sources for legal interpretation.
- Ensure Contextual Fit: When referencing foreign legal concepts or definitions, explicitly analyze their relevance and compatibility within the Ethiopian legal framework.
- Enhance Clarity for All Litigants: Ensure that all legal reasoning, including the definitions of terms, is presented in clear and accessible Amharic, even if foreign sources are consulted in the background.
By adopting a more disciplined and principled approach to the use of extrinsic lexicographical aids, the Cassation Bench can strengthen the coherence, predictability, and accessibility of Ethiopian jurisprudence, ensuring that its interpretations are firmly rooted in the country’s own legal system.