Whenever liquidation of property takes place, equal rights of successors should be given due consideration. In order to guarantee that proper liquidation should be ensured.

A decision rendered in the cassation bench on June 23, 2001 affirms this fact. The suit initiated with the claim of the applicant stating that the defendant should give him his part of the inheritance. The court analyzed the case at hand and stated that the land development agency has sent the value of the house hence it ordered ¼ of the estimated money to be given to the applicant. The high court up on appeal enforced the decision of the lower courts. As the cassation bench came to observe the appeal was only on the value of the house estimated by the agency. The appeal of the applicant showed that the value estimated was not based on the market value of the house but rather it was based on the cost of construction of house. Hence the mechanism of partition was unjust.

Book value only incorporates the costs incurred to build the house and the payments made to the workers involved in the building of the house. But when considering the market value of a given house, the location and the current value of the house are also considered. Generally a justicable and fair partition can only be guaranteed if the value estimated is based on the current the market value of the house. Having said that, the Cassation court amended the lower courts decisions and stated while partitioning property at the center of the dispute, the market value of the house shall be considered and that the applicant shall take ¼ of the estimated money.

What we can grasp from the above Cassation court decision is that whenever a question of division of property arises, courts should always take into consideration the market value of the property rather than its book value; that’s because this is the only way that fair distribution of property can be guaranteed.

If you have an additional question or comment please  Contact us

Any pertinent information on the subject can be available from any Ethiopian Lawyer, Ethiopian Attorney, Ethiopian Real Estate lawyer Ethiopian Family Lawyer, Ethiopian Succession Lawyer, Ethiopian Adoption lawyer, Ethiopian Immigration lawyer, Ethiopian Divorce Lawyer and Ethiopian Family Lawyer.

There is no stipulated provision as regards to the period of limitation in cases of donation contracts. But this doesn’t mean just because there is no provision, that the time for claiming execution of donation contract is unlimited.

Even though, there is no clear stipulation to this effect, it can be construed that since donation contract, is a contract, it should be subject to the general provisions of a contract. Article 1676(1) and 1845 care best elaborate this idea.

The cassation bench has attained this in a decision it rendered file No.42691.

In this case the appellant is claiming to have been donated a house around Bole Kebele 15 from the deceased W/ro Alemitu in the form of a donation agreement. The appellant is claiming to have given this house to her brother (The respondent) due to his shortage in finances and now he is refusing to return the house to the defendant.

Can employees working in an institution ask for part time payment even though they didn’t pass the 48 hour per week limit but have worked more than the 48 hours per day limit stipulated in the proclamation?


Framing the above issues, the Cassation bench has passed a judgment on October 4, 2000. The suit initiated in the Federal First Instance Court between the applicants Meta Abo Beer factory and defendants Ato Samuel Teferi. The defendants claim that the applicant refused to pay them part time for the work they did.

The First Instance Court reached the conclusion that the claim cannot be supported by law since it is proved that the employees worked only 48 hrs per week and in cases where they work on Sundays they got 24 hrs rest the coming day.  Giving the above reasons it rejected the claim of the defendant.

ጉዳዩ የተጀመረው ተጠሪ በአዲስ አበባ ከተማ ኮልፌ ቀራንዮ አካባቢ የመንገድ ስራ ሊያከናውን በአመልካች ንብረት ላይ ግምቱ ብር 25,569.85 የሆነ ጉዳት ማድረሱን ገልፆ ይህንኑ ገንዘብ ከነወለዱና ወጪው ጋር እንዲተካ እንዲወሰንለት በመጠየቁ ነው፡፡

ተጠሪም በሰጠው መልስ ተከሳሽ ድርጅት በግሪክ ሀገር ህግ መሠረት የተቋቋመና አድራሻውም በአቴንስ በመሆኑና በኢትዮጵያ ግዛት ውስጥ አለመመዝገቡን ገልፆ ጉዳዩ በየትኛው ፍ/ቤት ይታያል የሚል የግል አለም አቀፍ ህግ ስለሚያስነሳ ፍ/ቤቱ ጉዳዩን አይቶ የመወሰን ስልጣን የለውም የሚል መቋወሚያ አንስቶ ተከራክሯል፡፡ ፍ/ቤቱም ይህንን የመጀመሪያ ደረጃ መቃወሚያ በመቀበል ፍ/ቤቱ ጉዳዩን አይቶ የመወሰን ስልጣን የለውም ሲል ክሱን ዘግቷል፤ ጉዳዩም የሰበር ችሎት ደርሶ ታይቷል፡፡

ችሎቱም እንደተመለከተው ለክሱ ምክንያት የሆነውን ጉዳት ያደረሰው ስራውን በኢትዮጵያ ውስጥ ሲያከናውን መሆኑን ክሱ የቀረበውም ጉዳቱ በደረሰበትና ንብረቱ በሚገኝበት ክልል የሚገኘው ፍ/ቤት መሆኑን ነው፡፡ በፍ/ብ/ስ/ስ/ህ/ቁ. 27(1) መሠረትም የገንዘብ መጠኑን መሠረት አድርጐ የሚወሰነው የስረ-ነገር ስልጣን እንደተጠበቀ ሆኖ ጉዳቱ በደረሰበትና ንብረቱ በሚገኝበት ክልል በሚገኘው ፍርድ ቤት ነው፡፡

ከላይ የተጠቀሰውን ማብራሪያ በመስጠት የሰበር ሰሚው ችሎት የስር ፍ/ቤቶችን ውሳኔ በመሻር አንድ ተከሳሽ ድርጅት በውጭ ሀገር ህግ መሠረት የተቋቋመ የንግድ ድርጅቶች ቢሆንም ከውል ውጭ በሆነ ግንኙነት በኢትዮጵያ ፍ/ቤት ቀርቦ ሊዳኝ የሚችልና የፌደራሉ መጀመሪያ ፍ/ቤት ጉዳዩን አይቶ የመወሰን ስልጣን ያለው መሆኑን ገልጿል፡፡

ኢሜይል - fikadu@ethiopianlaw.com

አግባብነትያላቸውተጨማሪህግመረጃዎችከማናቸውምኢትዮጵያዊጠበቃ፣ኢትዮጵያዊታክስጠበቃ፣ኢትዮጵያዊየቤተሰብጠበቃ፣ኢትዮጵያዊየወንጀልጠበቃ፣ኢትዮጵያዊየንብረት/ውርስጠበቃ፣ኢትዮጵያዊየካሳጠበቃ፣ኢትዮጵያዊፍቺጠበቃ፣ኢትዮጵያዊየጉዲፈቻ ጠበቃ ማግኘትይችላሉ፡፡