WOLAITA SODO UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF LAW
GROUP ASSIGNMENT FOR THE COURSE CIVIL PROCEDURE II

S.No GROUP MEMBERS ID.NO

1 Tesfayesus Zana Law/We/071/13

2 Tesema Utula Law/We/068/13

3 Amanuel Milkias Law/We/013/13

4 Niguse Yohannis Law/We/051/13

5 Abeje Lube Law/We/003/13

6 Girma Yakob Law/We/085/13

7 Alemayehu Law/We/022/13

8 Lidiya Daniel Law/We/036/13

9 Mestewat Meja Law/We/045/13

10 Tegegn Toza Law/We/069/13

SUBMITTED TO: - TEKETEL LABENA (LLB, LLM)

DATE: MARCH/2024 G.C

WOLAITA SODO, ETHIOPIA

0
Federal Supreme Court Cassassion Decision Volume 12 File Number 65930

As according to the given case federal Supreme Court cassation decision volume 12, file number
65,930:- there are two kinds of witnesses presented.

1. Oral witnesses (eye witnesses)

2. Documentary evidence

By depending on our civil procedure code principle:

 The court has broad powers to compete the attendance of witnesses and the production of
documents and generally to obtain evidence that it considers necessary to enable it to
decide the issue at hand in the suit.
 Primary responsibility for the attendance of witnesses and production of documents rests
with the parties.
 However, the court in the exceptional circumstances may by its own motion, demand the
production of evidence and if it is essential, according to art 136 of Civil procedure code.
1. Whatever the court considers it necessary or expedients that the facts in dispute
between the parties should be verified, it may of its own motion or an application
issue a commission to one or more experts or other skilled in the matter, directing
them to verify such facts and report there on to the court within such fine as it shall
fix.
2. The commission shall specify clearly and distinctly the fact to be verified and the
provision of Art 133 and Art 134(2&3) shall apply in appropriate cases.

Conclusion:- as above explained we did not criticize the decision of federal supreme
court cassation (or in other word we support the decision of Federal supreme court) why
because the decision of federal first instance court is correct and the federal high court
decision in incorrect so that we criticize the decision of the federal high court is only
depending on eye witness and rejecting expert witnesses evidences. But our civil
procedure code further evidences and it gives more position than and only if acceptable.

1
The court's decision to accept the expert witnesses' testimony over that of the eye witnesses is
not uncommon in legal proceedings. Expert witnesses are often relied upon for their specialized
knowledge and experience in a particular field, which can carry more weight than lay witnesses.

In terms of relevant laws, it is important to consider Article 136(1) of the Civil Procedure Code
of Ethiopia, which may have guided the court's decision in this case. Additionally, the principle
of evidence law that expert testimony is generally given more weight than lay witness testimony
could have influenced the outcome.

Overall, the court's decision to accept the expert witnesses and reject the eye witnesses appears to
be in line with legal principles and procedures. It is essential for courts to carefully evaluate all
evidence presented before reaching a decision, and in this case, it seems that the court followed
proper legal procedures in reaching its conclusion.

Federal Suprem Court Cassassion Decision Volume 12 File Number 43453

Fact of the case

The Appellant Ambesa Bus public transportation service and the Respondents W/ro Zenebework
Kebede and Ato Ibrahim Abdujabir the issue was the Appellants bus by the reason of collide
damaged and for that damaged and the time taken out of work the bus lost income totally the
Respondents should pay 112,149.67 birr to the organization by presenting expert witness which
is traffic police and the Respondents also present their trial to the court the Appellants car
damaged our car so that the Appellant pay for the damaged and the car out of work it lost by
considering should pay 16,900 birr to the Respondents by presenting eye witness. And the
federal suprem court decided the bus make the mistake and by reducing the amount which the
Respondents asked 16,900 to 10,300birr.

Based on the above information, we gave comprehensive and precise comment as followed

In the case between Ambesa Bus public transportation service and W/ro Zenebework Kebede
and Ato Ibrahim Abdujabir the, the issue revolved around a collision where the Appellant's bus
was damaged, resulting in lost income due to time taken out of work. The Appellant sought
compensation of 112,149.67 birr from the Respondents, supported by an expert witness in the
form of a traffic police officer. On the other hand, the Respondents claimed that the Appellant's

2
bus had damaged their car and requested 16,900 birr in compensation, supported by an eye
witness.

The Federal Courts Proclamation No. 1234/2013 and Civil Code of Ethiopia provide the legal
framework for resolving such disputes. According to Ethiopian law, the party at fault in a
collision is liable to compensate the other party for damages incurred.

In this case, the Federal Supreme Court decided that the bus was at fault and reduced the amount
the Respondents requested from 16,900 birr to 10,300 birr. This decision was likely based on the
evidence presented and the court's assessment of liability.

Regarding the court's acceptance of the eye witness testimony and rejection of the expert
witness, it is important to consider that both types of witnesses can provide valuable evidence in
legal proceedings. Eye witnesses offer direct observations of events, while expert witnesses
provide opinions based on their professional knowledge.

In this situation, the court's decision to prioritize the eye witness testimony over the expert
witness may have been influenced by factors such as the clarity and consistency of the eye
witness account, as well as any corroborating evidence presented. Ultimately, it is within the
court's discretion to evaluate the evidence and make a judgment based on the merits of the case
and applicable laws.

Overall, the court's decision to accept the eye witness testimony and reject the expert witness
should be respected as part of the legal process, as long as it was made based on sound reasoning
and adherence to legal principles.

Federal Supreme Court Cassassion Decision Volume 6 File Number 22297

The Fact of the case

The Appellant Jimma city Administration office and the Respondents Ato Shewareged Abader
The case is furor avoidance case because of the litigant asked the court I succeeded my mother’s
house the house number 156 site plan number 928 with 1392 kare meter space the Appellant sold
to other person because of that the furor happened. The Appellant said this site plan number 928
registered in 1954 E.C. The Derg regim proclamation number 47/67 the allows the government

3
to take the reserve house and land of the peoples. By this reason the house was taken by the
derge government. The Respondents cannot defend this fact and the Appellant shows this fact at
the time of litigation. The litigant said to the court, at that time I where at the quarantine and the
derge dictatorship taken the house and gave to the other person by rent. The court heard the both
parties litigation and decided upon the heavyweight of the evidence there is no furor and the
Appellant won the case.

Based on the above information, we gave comprehensive and precise comment as followed

In this case, it appears that the litigant, Ato Shewareged Abader, claimed ownership of a house
that was sold by the Appellant, Jimma City Administration Office. The Appellant argued that the
house was taken by the Derg regime under Proclamation number 47/67, which allowed the
government to take reserve houses and land from the people. The litigant was unable to provide
evidence to defend against this claim, and the court ultimately ruled in favor of the Appellant.

It is important to note that under Ethiopian law, the government has the authority to expropriate
property for public purposes, subject to just compensation. In this case, if the house in question
was indeed taken by the Derg regime under a valid legal provision, then the litigant may not have
a valid claim to ownership.

Furthermore, in cases involving property disputes and ownership claims, the burden of proof lies
with the party making the claim. If the litigant was unable to provide sufficient evidence to
support his claim of ownership, it is reasonable for the court to rule in favor of the Appellant.

In terms of relevant laws, the Proclamation number 47/67 of the Derg regime would be a key
legal provision in this case. Additionally, the court would have considered principles of property
law and evidence law in reaching its decision.

Regarding Federal Supreme Court cassation decisions, it would be necessary to conduct further
research to identify specific cases that may be relevant to this situation. However, in general,
cassation decisions by the Federal Supreme Court serve as important precedents for interpreting
and applying the law in similar cases.

4
Overall, based on the information provided, it seems that the court's decision was justified given
the lack of evidence presented by the litigant and the legal basis for the government's
expropriation of property during the Derg regime.