Appraising the Interplay of Ethiopian Cassation Division’s and House of Federation’s Jurisprudence on (In)applicability Discourse of Period of Limitation to Rural Land: Case Analysis

Abstract

This analysis aims to appraise the nexus between Cassation division’s and House of Federation (HoF)’s jurisprudence on (in)applicability discourse of prescriptive limitation to rural land claims. The Federal Supreme Court Cassation Division is the highest bench of Ethiopian regular court whilst the HoF is an institution empowered to interpret the constitution. While their decisions serve as laws, the decisions of the latter bind those of the former. Yet, both are established to guard constitutionally granted rights, and a right to land is one spectrum of these rights. In Ethiopia, land is a common property that could not be provided for sale. Thus rural land law has exhaustively listed and limited schemes of access to rural land Nonetheless, it is penumbra whether prescriptive limitation is applicable to rural land claims. As a result, different cases have been decided by these institutions at different time. The author assessed some of these institutions’ decisions to appraise whether they have similar jurisprudence or not. The assessment reveals that cassation division has not yet developed clear jurisprudence, whilst the HoF has developed peasants’ right of non-eviction jurisprudence. Thus, cassation division must develop clear jurisprudence that acknowledges the HoF’s jurisprudence, and the legal and policy frameworks pertaining to land.