Binding Interpretation of Law in Ethiopia: Observations in Federal Supreme Court Cassation Decisions

Abstract

The Federal Supreme Court Cassation Division reviews cases based on cassation petition against final court decisions when they contain a fundamental error of law. Such decisions of the Cassation Division rendered by five judges are binding on lower courts. This article reviews cassation decisions for content and form under six categories. It also reviews how the Cassation Court sees its role to better contextualise the effectiveness of those decisions. It finds that the Cassation Division sees itself as part of a court, not an independent judiciary based on separation of powers, and its decisions show significant deference to administrative decisions, and heavy-handed interpretation and application of the rules of criminal and administrative laws. In civil cases, it shows strict interpretation of statutes; it does not resort to principle-based interpretation of rules; it rather interprets statutes as any other ordinary court does. Even if continental legal systems do not envisage case laws through their judicial decisions, courts are not expected to merely rely on the literal readings of the law where such readings are silent, absurd, unreasonable, inconsistent, and contrary to legislative intent. With regard to the form the judgments are written, there are decisions that are not befitting a Cassation Division, the highest judicial organ in Ethiopia.