The Unitary Court Structure: Historical Background

Ethiopia's judicial system was largely based on customary practices and traditional administrative
structures until the late 19th century. Disputes were resolved through informal local institutions, with
grievances being taken to the governors, Womber-Rasses representatives, and the Afe-Negus. The 1931
Constitution marked the beginning of the modern judicial system, establishing the Supreme Imperial
Court and other subordinate courts. Proclamation No 21/1942 established six levels of courts, including
the Supreme Imperial Court, High Court, and Provincial Courts. Subordinate courts like Awraja-Gizat,
Woreda-Gizat, and Mikiti-Gizat were also established. However, these courts were abolished due to lack
of jurisdiction. Later laws, such as the 1965 Civil Procedure Code, strengthened the judicial structure and
administration of justice.

The Present Dual Court Structure

The Ethiopian judicial system has been unified and centralized since the fall of the unitary Dergue
regime. The 1991 Transitional Charter established a new system as a fore-state of ethno-linguistic
federalism, leading to the 1995 FDRE Constitution, which constituted a federal state structure where
powers are divided between the Federal and Regional Governments. This created a double layer of
sovereignty in Ethiopia, with judicial power at both Federal and State levels vested in courts.

The Constitution provides for the establishment of two sets of courts: one at the Federal level and the
other at the State level. Both governments have their respective structures of court-stiered along three
layers: the supreme, high, and first instance courts. The Federal Supreme Court sits in Addis Ababa, while
the Federal High and First Instance Courts sit in Addis Ababa, DirreDawa, and other locations as deemed
necessary by the House of Peoples Representatives (HPR). If these courts are not established, their
jurisdiction is delegated to and exercised by the States' supreme and high courts, respectively.

However, there is a disparity in the nomenclature of courts found at the bottom of the hierarchy of
courts in the States. The Constitution only vests judicial power on regular courts and institutions
empowered by the Constitution, and strictly forbids the establishment of special or ad hoc courts.
Adjudicative bodies, such as the Labor Relation Board, Tax Appeal Commission, Civil Service Tribunal, and
Privatization Agency, are constituted to review administrative decisions

Lastly, the constitutionality of the Kebele-Social Courts Addis Ababa City Courts and the issue of the
jurisdiction of regular courts and the rules of procedure applying to them will be the subject of
discussion in the subsequent Charter.

Jurisdiction of Courts: Essential Elements

Judicial Jurisdiction

Judicial jurisdiction refers to the legal competence of a nation's courts to adjudicate a law suit and
render a judgment binding an individual or their property involved. The issue of judicial jurisdiction
usually arises when there is a "foreign element" in a case appearing before a court of a given state. A
case is said to have involved a foreign element if either of the parties is a foreigner to that state or the
transaction or property is occurring or is situated outside of the territorial boundaries of that state. In
this connection, the primarily question that must be addressed is whether, for instance, Ethiopia, USA, or
France, etc., as a state, is legitimately competent to subject a particular foreigner or his property to its
judicial powers.

A court of a state is held to possess judicial jurisdiction if it has sufficient contact with either the
defendant or property that is involved in the suit. Judicial jurisdiction has to do with the enforcement of
the judgement of a court against a foreign defendant who does not usually possess property in the
country where the case is heard and finally determined. In some instances, a court's judgement of a
given country may be enforced in another country on the basis of bilateral or multilateral treaties. The
need for a concession of reciprocity is also the other factor in this respect. By and large, the court of a
state to which a judgement is sent for execution will consider only whether the court that gave the
judgement possessed judicial jurisdicntion. If it finds that there was such a jurisdiction, the judgement
will thus be recognized forthwith and given effect in that state.

In Ethiopia, the issue of judicial jurisdiction is formally treated as one of private international law, and
the rules governing it are found in the latter area. However, cases involving foreign elements have
appeared before the court right since the early times of the country's judicial practices. In such
instances, unless an objection was raised on grounds of judicial jurisdiction, the courts would assume
that the jurisdiction exists and entertain the case in the usual business of the court.

Jurisdiction in Personam

An in Personam action is a legal action brought against a person, either natural or legal, seeking relief
from the defendant. It can be filed for damages or an injunction, and the court's jurisdiction in Personam
is determined by the rights of the litigants. Ethiopian courts are considered to have judicial jurisdiction in
Personam if the defendant is an Ethiopian national or domiciliary, has consented to the exercise of
jurisdiction by the Ethiopian court, or the act the subject matter of the suit occurred or is situated in
Ethiopia. These factors are optional or alternative grounds, and it is considered sufficient for Ethiopian
courts to exercise personal jurisdiction if one of them is present in a given case. In such cases, there is
judicial jurisdiction even if the defendant is neither an Ethiopian national nor a domiciliary.

I. Nationality or Domiciliary of Defendant

The first and the most common factor on the basis of which Ethiopian courts will establish judicial
Ethiopian courts establish judicial jurisdiction based on whether the defendant is an Ethiopian
national or domiciliary. If the defendant is not an Ethiopian national or domiciliary, the Ethiopian
court cannot assume jurisdiction on him simply because the plaintiff possesses such a status. If both
parties are Ethiopian nationals, the issue of judicial jurisdiction would not arise as Ethiopian courts
have jurisdiction over them.
If both parties are foreigners and the transaction has also occurred abroad, the relevance of domicile
(of the defendant) for an Ethiopian court to exercise judicial jurisdiction arises. Ethiopian courts can
only entertain cases between a Kenyan plaintiff and a Sudanese defendant, provided that the latter
is domiciled here. Birth is the main mode of acquiring Ethiopian nationality, and an Ethiopian
national is any person of either sex whose-both or either-parent is an Ethiopian.

Ethiopian domiciliary is one who has established the principal seat of their business and interests in
Ethiopia with the intention of residing there permanently or for an indefinite period of time. A
foreigner who satisfies these conditions of domiciliary can thus be subjected to the jurisdiction of
Ethiopian courts.

Just as physical persons are subject to judicial jurisdiction in the state of their nationality or domicile,
legal persons (corporate bodies) are also subject to the courts of the state which created them. Any
association, company, or NGO established in accordance with pertinent Ethiopian laws is subject to
the judicial jurisdiction of Ethiopia, even though the transaction on which the suit is brought
occurred elsewhere.

II. The Doing of an Act

The second factor determining judicial jurisdiction for Ethiopian courts is "the doing of an act." If the
defendant is not an Ethiopian national or domiciliary, the court should look for whether the act that
causes the suit occurred in Ethiopia. This means that an Ethiopian court will have judicial jurisdiction
if the subject matter of the suit occurred in Ethiopia, even if the defendant is a foreigner or not an
Ethiopian domiciliary.

Hypothetical examples of judicial jurisdiction include contracts concluded with foreigners or

accidents inflicted by or against a foreigner-herein in Ethiopia. An Ethiopian court will have personal
jurisdiction over a foreign defendant on a suit that had been concluded outside of Ethiopia but was
performed here. In summary, Ethiopian courts have judicial jurisdiction when the defendant is an
Ethiopian national or domiciliary. However, judicial jurisdiction may still exist even if the act that is
the subject matter of the suit occurred in Ethiopia or if the transaction has sufficient contact with
Ethiopia, making it reasonable for Ethiopia to hear a suit involving the transaction.

III. Consent of Parties

In Ethiopian law, courts must obtain the consent of the defendant to exercise jurisdiction over them,
even if they are not otherwise subject to Ethiopian jurisdiction. Consent can be express or implied,
and can be made part of the terms of the contract or reduced in writing after the conclusion of the
main contract. For example, two Yemeni businesspersons may conclude a contract in Aden, where it
is to be performed there, but also agree to submit any dispute to Ethiopian courts. The Ethiopian
courts will exercise jurisdiction based on the express agreement of the parties. Consent can also be
gathered by implication from the defendant's behavior. For example, if a Kenyan national and
domiciliary is sued in Ethiopia for breach of a contract made and performed therein, they cannot
 repudiate their consent and challenge the jurisdiction of the court if they do not raise an objection at
the earliest possible opportunity before proceeding with the trial/merits of the suit.

Jurisdiction in Rem

In rem jurisdiction refers to the court's power to pass a valid judgement against the property of the
parties, not against the person of the parties themselves. An action in rem is essentially directed
against property, and the relief sought pertains to the property itself, without reference to the title
of individual claims or specific persons. The plaintiff does not seek an order binding the person of
the defendant, although an individual may be named as a defendant in the proceeding. A judgement
in rem settles the destiny of the property (or of some interest therein) against all whom it might
concern or with reference to "the entire world." This binding binds all persons claiming an interest in
the property inconsistence with the judgement, even though pronounced in their absence. The
"situs of property" has jurisdiction over the case whereby the relief is sought with respect to the
property itself.

What do you think is the nature of a decree establishing or dissolving a

marriage (i.e., is it a judgement in rem or in Personam? Explain

I'd be glad to analyze the nature of a decree establishing or dissolving a marriage and
explain whether it's a judgment in rem or in personam.

Here's a breakdown of the key concepts and their implications:

1. Judgment in Rem:

 Directly affects a specific property or status.

 Binds everyone, even those not involved in the original case.
 Examples: Probate of a will, admiralty actions, foreclosure of a mortgage.

2. Judgment in Personam:

 Only affects the specific parties involved in the case.

 Does not bind those who weren't parties to the lawsuit.
 Examples: Most civil lawsuits, such as breach of contract or personal injury.

Considering these distinctions, a decree establishing or dissolving a marriage is a

judgment in rem.
Here's why:

1. It affects the status of the marriage itself, which is a legally recognized

relationship, rather than just the rights and obligations of the individual parties.
2. It binds the entire world, meaning everyone must recognize the new marital
status of the individuals, even if they weren't involved in the divorce proceedings.
3. It has consequences beyond the immediate parties, such as affecting property
rights, inheritance rights, and tax status.

Therefore, even though divorce proceedings involve individual parties, the judgment
ultimately operates on the status of the marriage itself, making it a judgment in rem.

2.2.2. Material /Subject-Matter

In Ethiopia, determining the competent court to adjudicate a case involves determining the level of
competent court from among the judicial structure in the hierarchy of courts. Material jurisdiction
refers to the power of a particular court to determine the type or kind of a dispute involved in a case.
In past regimes, determining the material jurisdiction of a court was relatively simpler due to the
single, vertically structured judicial system. However, with the advent of the federal form of
government, the task is somewhat complicated, with the need to distinguish between the Federal
judicial structure and the Regional/State arrangement of courts.

There are three main issues to be cleared: determining whether the case is not falling outside the
judicial power of ordinary courts, making a horizontal distinction between Federal and
Regional/State matters (jurisdiction), and determining which level of court is competent vertically
from among a given structure to see a given law-suit. Two broad criteria commonly used to
determine the material jurisdiction of courts in Ethiopia are "Subject Matter" jurisdiction and
"Pecuniary" jurisdiction.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Subject matter jurisdiction, based on the case type, involves identifying matters within and outside the
regular court structure, distinguishing between "Federal" and "State" subject matter.

I. Matters outside the Jurisdiction of Courts

Courts in Ethiopia have the power to decide cases and settle disputes in accordance with the law, but
they are not competent to see all types of cases referred to them. Justiciable matters are inclusive of all
cases unless the law provides otherwise. Art 37 of the FDRE ConstitutionRegular courts must ensure that
the case instituted therein is not one that falls partly or wholly outside the jurisdiction of ordinary
courts.
Some issues identified by law to be treated by other tribunals entrusted with delegated, quasi-judicial
power are related to administrative activities and functions of the government. When the power of
adjudication is given to other agencies outside the ordinary judicial structure, such as the Tax Appeal
Commission, the Civil Service Tribunal, and the Labour Relations Board, the court will not have material
jurisdiction and cannot render a validly enforceable decision.

Conflicts arising from the respective activities of these institutions will be within the primary jurisdiction
of these tribunals. Parties may not directly file their case to a regular court from the outset, but an
appeal is allowed from the decision of these tribunals, particularly on issues of law.

Sharia Courts, though their jurisdiction is entirely consensual, are empowered to see family matters,
such as marriage, divorce, maintenance, and succession.Proc No 11188/99)

If both Muslim parties agree to get their case decided by Sharia Courts, the final decision cannot be
reviewed and falls outside the jurisdiction of regular courts.

Disputes settled by arbitration or compromise are also outside the ambit of regular courts. Certain
matters of purely political or administrative nature are considered non-justiciable and cannot be
entertained by regular courts.

II. Federal Vs Regional Subject-Matter Distinction

Art 80(1)The Federal vs Regional Subject-Matter Distinction in Ethiopia is a complex issue that requires
careful consideration of the power dynamics between the Federal and Regional courts. The first
technique involves the power-sharing method of the Constitution, which defines the powers and
functions of both the Federal and Regional governments. This approach lists down the powers of the
Federal Government and leaves out all residual powers not expressly granted to the Federal Government
to the Regional Governments.

Art 80(1)The Federal Supreme Court has the final say on Federal matters, while the Regional Supreme
Courts have the final authority and give final decisions on regional mattersArt 80(2)

. However, this distinction is not definitive enough to determine the respective powers of the courts.
Another alternative approach is the Federal Courts Establishment Proclamation, Proc, No 25/1996,
which lists down the civil subject-matter jurisdiction of the Federal Courts under its Article 5. The
proclamation employs three separate parameters to determine the material (subject-matter) jurisdiction
of the Federal Courts on a given lawsuit: the nature and status of the law on which the case is based, the
place where the case arose, and the nature/type of the suit itself.
The first factor used by the Proclamation is looking at the law on the basis of which the case is instituted.
If the case is based on the Federal Constitution, Federal laws, or international agreements (treaties), it
falls under the Federal Courts' subject-matter jurisdiction. The second factor is the status of the parties
themselves. If the parties to a suit are those specified or administered by the Federal laws, the power to
entertain the case resides in the Federal Courts.

The third parameter relates to the "place" where the case arose. In Addis Ababa and Dirre-Dawa,
disputes arising in either of those places would be within the competence of the Federal Courts,
regardless of the identity of the parties. The final test considers the nature or type of the case itself.

In conclusion, the laws, parties, the place, and type of the suit are general distinguishing factors that
determine cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts. State laws, on the other hand, are
laws proclaimed by the legislative bodies of the Regional States on residual powers or remaining areas. A
claim based on State law would be within the subject matter of the State and under the jurisdiction of its
courts. However, this may not always be true, as there may be conditions and instances where cases
arising under State Laws are regarded as Federal subject matter.

The Federal Court Proclamation (FDRE Constitution) outlines the jurisdiction of Federal Courts in cases
arising from State laws. This includes disputes involving foreign nationals, permanent residents of
different Regional States, or Federal Government organs or officials. However, there are conditions where
issues raised on the basis of State Law may be categorized under Federal Courts' jurisdiction. In such
cases, State Courts handle the Federal case through delegation, with the States Supreme Courts delegating
to see Federal High Court cases and the States High Courts delegating to see Federal First Instance cases.
When a case is determined as a Federal or State subject matter, the next step is to identify the appropriate
level of court, such as Federal, First Instance, or High Courts. The determination of the appropriate level
depends on the amount of controversy or the pecuniary amount involved in the case. The Federal Courts
will have subject matter jurisdiction over cases arising from Federal Laws and on issues based on State
Laws between parties specified in Federal Laws.
The question arises as to how Sub-Articles (1) and (2) of Art 3 of Proc 25/96 should be understood in
relation to Art 5(2) of the same. Article 3(1) provides that if a case is based on federal laws, it would fall
under the federal subject matter and therefore within the jurisdiction of federal courts. However, Article
3(2) stipulates that Federal Courts shall have jurisdiction over cases that involve parties specified in
Federal Laws.
In conclusion, the Federal Court Proclamation outlines the jurisdiction of Federal Courts in cases arising
from Federal Laws and between parties specified in Federal Laws.

Jurisdictional Limits of Courts: Pecuniary Amount Vs Types of Cases

Material jurisdiction refers to a court's ability to determine the type of dispute in a legal case.
Jurisdictional division is primarily used to distribute judicial business among different courts based on
the amount of money involved or the complexity of the case. The Civil Procedure Code and Federal
Courts Establishment Proclamation, Proc No 25/96, address this division. Proc No 25/96 determines the
jurisdictional limits of Federal Courts, while the Civil Procedure Code establishes the limits of State
Courts.

I. Pecuniary Amount: Federal Vs States‟ Courts Jurisdictional Limits

A. Federal Courts: General Vs Limited Jurisdiction

The civil jurisdiction of the Federal First Instance and High Court is determined by the amount of money
and the type of the case. Civil cases involving less than 500,000 birr are subject to the jurisdiction of
Federal First Instance Courts, while those exceeding 500,000 birr are entrusted to Federal High Courts.
However, the jurisdictional power is exclusively given to the Federal High Court. The amount of money a
case involves determines where a case should be filed. The type of the case determines the jurisdictional
limits of courts, but does not take the amount of money involved into account. Cases related to
nationality, foreign judgment enforcement, change of venue, and international law fall under this
category and are within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. This distinction between general and
limited jurisdiction is based on Articles 8 & 11 of Proc.No25/96.

B. States Courts: Original Vs Appellate Jurisdiction

The Civil Procedure Code's material jurisdiction rules are inconsistent with the proclamation, but the
jurisdictional limits of States Courts are determined based on Art 13. Woreda courts have first instance
jurisdiction over claims involving up to 5,000 Birr for movable properties and 10,000 Birr for immovable
properties. State High Courts handle cases exceeding 5,000 Birr for movables and 10,000 Birr for
immovable properties. State Supreme Courts do not have first instance or original jurisdiction, so all
cases in State Courts must start in either Woreda Court or High Court.

C. Determination of Amount in Controversy

Art. 226-228 of the Civil Procedure and Art 226 of the Civil Procedure govern the determination of the
amount in a case. The plaintiff's statement of claim is crucial in determining the court's jurisdiction. Art.
16(2) of the 1965 Civil Procedure Code states that the court must consider the amount of claim stated in
the statement of claim. Art. 226-228 governs the amount to be stated in the statement of claim. For a
recovery of money, the plaintiff must indicate the precise amount in their statement of claim or the
estimated amount of the case. If a plaintiff is seeking the recovery of a specific thing, they must indicate
the actual value in the statement of claim.

III. Type of Cases: Exclusive Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction in courts is determined by the monetary value or nature of the case, but in some cases,
jurisdiction is granted irrespective of the pecuniary amount involved. For example, under Art 11 (2) of
Proclamation No 25/96, the Federal High Court has exclusive First Instance Jurisdiction over cases related
to private international law, nationality, enforcement of foreign judgments, or applications for change of
venue. This means that the Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction in all cases mentioned in this
text. This means that the court has jurisdiction over all cases related to these matters.

Local Jurisdiction

Local jurisdiction refers to the specific court where a case will be tried, allowing for the referral of the
case to a court that is convenient for the parties and their witnesses, particularly the defendant. This
process is not conclusively resolved by identifying both judicial jurisdiction and the level of court within
the material jurisdiction of which the case falls. For example, if a case falls within the material
jurisdiction of the Federal First Instance Court, the rules on "Local Jurisdiction" will be used to identify
the specific Federal First Instance Court from among the First Instance Courts in Addis Ababa and Dirre
Dawa. The rules on local jurisdiction aim to reduce inconveniences that may arise from deliberate
"forumshopping" tendencies of some litigants, ensuring that the case is handled fairly and fairly within
the court structure.

The Basic Place of Local Jurisdiction

Local jurisdiction refers to the specific court where a case will be tried, allowing for the referral of the
case to a court that is convenient for the parties and their witnesses, particularly the defendant. This
process is not conclusively resolved by identifying both judicial jurisdiction and the level of court within
the material jurisdiction of which the case falls. For example, if a case falls within the material
jurisdiction of the Federal First Instance Court, the rules on "Local Jurisdiction" will be used to identify
the specific Federal First Instance Court from among the First Instance Courts in Addis Ababa and Dirre
Dawa. The rules on local jurisdiction aim to reduce inconveniences that may arise from deliberate
"forumshopping" tendencies of some litigants, ensuring that the case is handled fairly and fairly within
the court structure.

A. “…actually resides…”

The Indian Civil Procedure Code, which is a part of the Civil Procedure Code, does not directly address
the legal residence of a defendant with multiple residents. Instead, it requires their voluntary and actual
residence. For instance, having an ancestral home at a place and visiting it occasionally may not suffice
to establish an "actual and voluntary" residence. In our law, residence is treated flexibly, and every
individual is considered to have a residence, even if it is the place they are at a specific moment.
However, there may be instances where a person may be at different places at different times, and
determining which place should be considered for the purposes of Art 19 may be challenging. The Civil
Code has envisioned a solution by characterizing one place as a "principal" residence, and considering all
others as secondary ones. The primary residence is the place where someone stays more normally or
frequently, or for the longest period. Thus, a person's primary residence would be the place where they
actually reside for purposes of local jurisdiction, which is likely the place where it is convenient for them
to defend a suit brought against them.

B. “…carries on business…”
 Art.58 (b) of C.P.C states that the test of "carrying on business" is determined by owning interest in the
business and enjoying profits therefrom, rather than the continuity or intermittence of the business or
the physical appearance or effort of the individual concerned. This means having a share in the profit or
loss and a voice (some control) over the business is an important factor. In cases involving joint
defendants, suits may be instituted in the court of any of the places where any of the defendants resides
or carries on business or personally works for gain in Ethiopia.

Art 20(1) provides that the suit may be instituted in any court in Ethiopia where the plaintiff prefers,
unless it relates to an immovable property of the defendant. The Civil Procedure Code states the basic
place of local jurisdiction of suits against legal persons, such as business organizations, at the place
where the head office or branch office against which the suit is made is situated. The Ethiopian Civil
Code uses the term "body corporate" to refer to all kinds of legal persons, including associations and
business organizations.

Art 22(2) differs from Art 22(1), as the legal persons mentioned under Art 22(2) are formed for non-profit
purposes. When a suit is instituted against such legal persons, it may be brought at the place where the
legal person was formed or where the law requires it to be registered. Article 21 of the Code applies a
different approach in defining local jurisdiction for cases instituted against the Government, considering
the plaintiff's convenience and taking their residence or work place as a base for determining local
jurisdiction.

Suits Regarding Contracts

Article 24 of the Civil Procedure Code outlines four rules on suits regarding contracts. These rules are
categorized into four types: Contracts generally, Contracts of carriage, Contracts of Insurance, and
Contracts of pledge, deposit, or bailment.

Suits arising from contracts in general can be instituted at the place where the contract was made or
executed, unless another place is mentioned in the contract. The plaintiff can also institute their case in a
place where the defendant resides, works for gain, or carries on business. If the contracting parties have
agreed that law-suits arising therefrom will be brought in another place, then the plaintiff has to institute
the action in such specified place.

Contracts of carriage may have two types: carriage by sea and carriage by air. Suits involving these types
will be instituted in accordance with their respective laws. For example, suits involving contracts of
carriage by sea are instituted at the court sitting at the port of arrival of the good, while suits concerning
contracts of carriage by air are instituted according to Art 647 of the Commercial Code.

Suits regarding insurance contracts may be instituted in the court of the plaice where the head office of
the insurance company is situated or registered or where the object insured is situated. Suits concerning
pledges, deposits, and bailments are instituted in the court of the place where the property is located.

An issue of local jurisdiction whereby suit related with immovable property is treated under Art 25 of the
Civil Procedure Code. The article provides that suits involving immovable property must be instituted at
the place where the immovable property exists. However, once it is proved that the issue is an issue of
immovable property, the provisions of all other articles are inapplicable.
Suits for the recovery of immovable property with or without rent or mense profits, partition,
determination of any right to or interest in immovable property, and compensation for wrong to
immovable property should only be instituted in the court of the place where the property is situated.

Suits for wrong done to persons or movable property are subject to local jurisdiction in cases of extra
contractual liability. Suits regarding succession, which is being liquidated, shall be instituted in the court
of the place where the succession was opened.

Suits upon several causes of action can be instituted in any court with jurisdiction over one of the causes
of action. However, the rule on joinder of causes of action is subject to the provision of Article 25,
meaning that the plaintiff is not allowed to join suits involving immovable property where the property is
situated within the local jurisdiction of different courts.

Change of Venue (Transfer of Suit) and Removal of Judges

rt 31 of the Civil Procedure Code provides a way to address situations where the basic place of local
jurisdiction may not be convenient for litigating parties for certain reasonable grounds. This rule allows
for the transfer of suits, or change of forum, and removal of judges.

A case should be instituted in a court with jurisdiction over it, and a case filed in a court lacking
jurisdiction shall be rejected. However, the rule on "transfer of a suit" from one court to another makes a
modification to it, allowing the case to be transferred from a court with jurisdiction over it to a court
without one. In the ordinary course of the law, the transfer is ordered when there exists a problem with
the proceedings in the court where the case is originally instituted.

Art 31 of the Code has three grounds that justify such transfer: an allegation that a fair and impartial trial
cannot be made in the court where the suit was instituted; a situation where a party contends that the
court in which the case is pending cannot properly handle the proceeding since the case involves some
question of law of unusual difficulty; and the third rational that makes possible the transfer of a suit from
one court to another is where the court seized of the case is found to be inconvenient to the party so
demanding.

The rules on local jurisdiction are primarily designed to achieve handiness for the parties, and the
transfer of suits from a court to another is meant for the suitability of the parties, particularly the
defendant. However, it is important to note that the rule on the transfer of suits is an exception to the
general principle, and narrow interpretation should be adopted when the need arises.

Art 91 of the Code also allows for the transfer of suits when a pleading submitted to a court is amended
and makes the case fall under the jurisdiction of a higher court. A judge may withdraw or be removed
from a bench essentially to achieve impartiality of the court.

In summary, the Civil Procedure Code provides a way to address situations where the basic place of local
jurisdiction may not be convenient for litigating parties for certain reasonable grounds.
Conflicts of Jurisdiction: Priority, Pendency and Consolidation of Cases Overview

Conflicts of jurisdiction can arise between courts, such as Federal and State Courts, or within a single
judicial structure. The Federal Supreme Court has the power to determine such conflicts. The same rule
applies when two or more courts dismiss a case based on its jurisdiction. A suit arising from a single
cause of action cannot be instituted or tried by more than one court at a time to avoid inconsistent
judgments and make enforceability difficult. However, this may occur when parties have filed separate
suits involving the same claim or when two or more courts assume jurisdiction over the same cause of
action. The Civil Procedure Code addresses these problems through rules of priority, pendency, and
consolidation. This ensures that cases are handled efficiently and effectively, preventing conflicts of
jurisdiction and ensuring fairness in legal proceedings.

A. Priority

The question of priority arises when a plaintiff institutes two or more suits on the same cause of action
in different courts. For example, if A is claiming a certain amount of Birr from a defendant on a contract
made in Addis Ababa and to be performed in BahirDar, the plaintiff has the possibility to institute his
case both in Addis Ababa and BahirDar. If the amount does not exceed 500,000.00 Birr, the Federal First
Instance Court in Addis Ababa or the High Court of the Amhara Regional Government in BahirDar will
have jurisdiction to see the suit. If it exceeds 500,000.00 Birr, the High Court of Federal High Court or the
Supreme Court of the State will have jurisdiction over the case.

In such a situation, the defendant may be harassed to defend his case in both areas and may receive
inconsistent judgments. To avoid this problem, the rule of priority is provided under Article 7 of the civil
Procedure Code. Article 7 Priority 1) states that one and the same civil suit may not be instituted in more
than one civil court. 2) Where a suit may be instituted in any of several courts, the court in which the
statement of claim was first filed should have jurisdiction and the suit shall be pending in that court.

B. Pendency

Article 8 of the Civil Procedure Code in Ethiopia addresses the issue of pendency, which occurs when
a suit is pending in a court that is also filed in another court with the same cause. This can lead to a
preliminary objection, as per Art 244(2) of the Code. To avoid this, the Civil Procedure Code provides
a rule on pendency, which allows the court to dismiss the suit or direct the parties to apply for
consolidation. However, the court is not prevented from entertaining a case pending in a foreign
court.

Consolidation of suits is another issue, where the claims of both parties are separate but the matter
in issue in one suit is closely related to a suit pending in another court. For example, in a property
recovery case, the issue is the same: who is entitled to the property? In such a case, either party can
apply to a higher court to have the cases consolidated for trial under Art 11, where the higher court
directs one of the subordinate courts to try the case. Consolidation is applied when two or more
suits involving the same parties and similar issues in different courts or where there is a question of
pendency, resulting in both suits being consolidated under the consolidation procedure.