APPLICANT Teshome guta Vs Zemenu yohhanes
FDRE SUPERME COURT CASSATION DIVISION
Vol,19 File No, 109383 P 54 -58 , 2008 EC
THE CASE INVOVED the respondent filed a lawsuit against the petitioner in the federal court of
first instance claiming that their unfair dismissal was illegal and requested that they be paid
different payment. According to the applicant answer to the lawsuit , the court has no
jurisdiction to hear the case because the organization located in oromiya region , sebeta city 02
kebele so they raised a preliminary objection and argued that the dismissal was legal. The court
ruled that the federal court has the jurisdiction to hear the case because the litigants are
residents of different regions then the court decided that the dismissal is illegal and ruled to
compensated the victim 104,730.00 and for the expense of argument birr 500 birr. against tis
decision the applicant filed an appeal with theederal high court and the court heard their
argument and confirmed that the lower court had the authority to hear the case and concluded
that the dismissal was illegal. The appeal brought te federal supreme court cassation division
by objection of the decision given by the lower courts.
In this cassation division in this argument of both side we have analysis two essential points
According to the compliant submitted by the applicant the company where the respondent was
employed in the organization located in Oromia region sebata city 02 kebele so according to
proclamation 377/1996 article 138(1) and civil procedure code 22(1) accordingly , were te
organization is located which has the authority to see and decide the matter although federal
courts in addis ababa and dredawa are authorized to hear labour disputesbut in this case the
litigants are residence of two regions pursuant to proclamation no 25/1988 article 5(2) based
on the rejection of the counterclaim that the federal courts have the jurisdiction to hear the
case, the state courts have jurisdiction over the labour disputes regardless of the identity of the
disputing party or the region were they live according to 377/1996. Overall the applicant
claimed that that lower court does not have the jurisdiction to hear and the dismissal of the
work was legal asked to reverse the decision .
The respondent by there side argued the clinic has no legal personality and the charge brought
here is by name of manager and owner ato guta in this basis in proclamation 25/1988 article
5(2) the litigants are Oromia and Amhara region reidents so by this basis the jurisdiction given
to federal court is not reprehensible overall proclamation 25/1988 article 20 and 23 the federal
court has the authority to hear labour disputes so he requested that the applicant complaint
be rejected .
To sum up the supreme court decided that even tough the federal courts have the jurisdiction
to hear disputes between litigants whose jurisdiction is in different states by proclamation
25/1988 article 5(2) under this rule not about local jurisdiction its about material jurisdiction so
te lower courts with out their jurisdiction the ruled decsicio is reprehensible and due to
irregularity of the procdure we rejected
