Himannaa Abbaa Qabiyyummaafi Mirga Abbaa Qabiyyummaa Lafa Magaalaa: Xiinxala Dhimmaa

Abstract

This case comment bases itself on the decision rendered by the Cassation Division of Supreme Court of Oromia. It contends that material facts that should be stated in possessory actions and in actions related to landholding rights are different. These two actions protect two different legal interests. While possessory action is an action brought to protect a factual situation (possession) of a person provisionally, action in relation to landholding rights is an action that is instituted to enforce the land rights (title to land) granted to a landholder in case it is violated. In the case under discussion, the Cassation Division of Supreme Court of Oromia has obscured the distinctions between the two types of actions and combined them as one. In this case, all the material facts which should exist to bring a possessory action and all the facts which are required to bring an action in relation to violated landholding right existed cumulatively. The means of proof that are required to establish both actions are also there. Despite the existence of these facts and evidences, the Cassation Division has mingled and decided on the two issues as one on a single file. This decision of the cassation division conflates the material facts of the two actions in a single action; which is procedurally unjust, substantively wrong and thus sets a bad precedent for the lower courts. It has also disclosed that the laws lack clarity regarding whether a title can be pleaded in a possessory action. Thus, in addition to the call for amendment of the laws, it is recommended that possessory actions in relation to land and landholding right action, which according to the relevant laws, constitute different material facts should be treated differently and separately. Even when, a single action that constitutes the material facts of both actions is brought before a court, the court should either order the plaintiff to amend his action or suit so as to ensure its compliance with the relevant laws or the court should, alternatively, for the sake of procedural efficiency and based on the willingness of the parties, allow the parties to plead a title and investigate the two separate issues together, and should try the whole issues on a single file.