It is clearly stipulated under article 33(2) of the Civil Procedure Code that no person will be considered as a plaintiff unless he shows that he has a vested interest in the subject matter of the suit.
So, does that mean a party who contracted to solve disputes that may arise in arbitration, will not have a right to bring a suit to the court to enforce this obligation on the other contracting party just because he didn’t show his vested interest on the matter?
The cassation bench gave a final decision on a matter on December 9, 2011. The issue was brought to the court by the application of the applicant concerning the agreement to solve any disputes through arbitration judges.
This issue had already been seen by lower courts. But both the High Court and Supreme Court dismissed the case on grounds of Article 33(2) but the cassation bench decided otherwise based on the following grounds.
Article 11731 of the civil code clearly stipulates that the provisions of a contract lawfully formed shall be binding on the parties as though they were law. So, in this particular case, it can easily be understood what the plaintiff is claiming is to affirm that this right arose from a law or a contract. So even though article 33(2) of the civil procedure code stipulates that the plaintiff has to show vested interest it has to be construed to mean he has to show whether this right arise from a law or a contract.
So, one can conclude from the above judgment that any application to perform a certain obligation stipulated in the contract has to be analyzed by the courts.
If you have an additional question or comment please Contact us.
Any pertinent information about investment in Ethiopia, tax in Ethiopia, can be available from an Ethiopian Lawyer, Ethiopian Investment Lawyer, Ethiopian Tax lawyer, Ethiopian, Ethiopian Employment Lawyer, Ethiopian Labour Relationships Lawyer, Ethiopian Immigration lawyer, Ethiopian Divorce Lawyer…etc.
