ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

College of Law and Governance Studies

School of law Section-2

Name ID number
1. Tsinat Kassa UGR/2665/14
2. Woinab Dejene UGR/4551/14
3. Yabsira Atlaw UGR/4247/14
4. Yeabsra Wubishet UGR/2274/14
5. Yemareshet Muluneh UGR/2950/14

Submitted to: Instructor Kokebe W.

Case Comment: Ato Samuel Wubishet and others V. Ato Bizuneh Belayneh
Appellant: Ato Samuel Wubishet and others
Respondent: Ato Bizuneh Belayneh
Court: Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench

B. Summary on the Facts of the case:

This is a case comment on the case brought to the Supreme Court Cassation Bench File no.
27506 on Hamle 19, 1999 E.C. The parties to the dispute were Mr. Samuel Wubishet and
others as plaintiffs against the defendant, Mr. Bizuneh Belayneh. They petitioned to the court
for the cessation of the interference caused by the defendant during the exercise of their
property rights. They argued that the dispute arose because of the house, which was
confiscated based on Proclamation No. 47/67 and is now under the Jigjiga Kebele
Administration Office, and the plaintiffs have been possessors thereof for the last 20 years
based on a lease contract signed by them and the public administration. The defendant, on the
other hand, argued that the plaintiffs’ claim should be rejected; stating that the house that was
the cause of the lawsuit was inherited from his aunt (Mrs. Tewabech Zerfu), who was its
owner. Upon hearing the case, the Jigjiga High Court ruled that the house that is the cause of
the dispute belongs to the Jijiga City Administration, and the plaintiffs are living in this house
legally, so the interference caused by the defendant should be ceased according to Art.
1149(3) of the Ethiopian Civil Code. The defendant, who was disappointed by this decision,
appealed to the Supreme Court of Somalia, which reversed the decision of the High Court by
arguing that the house that was the cause of the dispute was not confiscated by such a
proclamation, the relevant administration confirmed that the appellant was the heir of the
individual who was the owner of the house. Finally, the Supreme Court Cassation Division
ruled that it is not appropriate to raise an ownership dispute in a lawsuit filed to remove
interference unless it is seen that the argument raised by the respondent in terms of ownership
is not relevant to the issue of whether interference has occurred or not. Rather, it is better if
the respondent presented another case against the subject of a petitionary action. Therefore, it
was found to be a fundamental legal error for the Somali Regional Supreme Court to rule that
the respondent is the owner of the house in the absence of a dispute over ownership by the
respondent and in the case of the petitioners claiming that interference should be avoided.
C. Reasoning of the Court:
The Jijiga Zone High Court, the first court to adjudicate, decided in the plantiffs' favor. The
argument that it used was that the plaintiffs had been legally inhabiting and residing in the
contested houses, which belonged to the Jijiga City Administration. Accordingly, the
defendant's interference is prohibited by Article 1149(3) of the Civil Code.
The next court of appeal, the Supreme Court of the Somalia Region, overturned the ruling of
the High Court and ruled in the defendant's favor. In contrast to the High Court, the Supreme
Court adopted the line of reasoning that the city administration has proven, the contested
house has not been confiscated. Furthermore, the defendant has demonstrated his ownership
right that he acquired by inheritance from the deceased owner. As a result, the high court's
conclusion departed from the theme of the case.
The cassation bench has been assigned the case to inquire into the pertinence of the claim that
the houses were the property of the respondent, as the public administration was renting them
out and collecting income, but they were not confiscated by Proclamation 47/67. The
plaintiffs brought possessory action since they are lawful possessors of the houses by contract
of lease from the Jijiga City Administration. The bench has acknowledged the issue of
whether or not interference has occurred as the main essence of the case. The occurrence of
interference is not being denied by the respondent. The respondent claims that since he
inherited the house, he is its rightful owner. The respondent's argument has nothing to do
with the issue identified by the bench. Instead, it refers to the respondent's right to pursue a
petitory action, which is distinct from the current case. Thus, the ruling of the Supreme Court,
which provides a justification for intervention because the accused is the owner, has a basic
error of law.
D. Court’s Decision

During the Cassation Bench's deliberations, great attention was paid to the provisions found
in Article 1149 of the Civil Code, which clearly states that every possessor has the right to
defend their ownership. The Bench, aware of its need to respect precedent and legal
principles, carefully considered all of the relevant issues at hand.
The claim that ownership and possession should not be confused, in contrast to the State High
Court's position, was at the center of the discussion. It was emphasized that the ownership
question is a separate legal question that requires independent determination and the
production of strong evidence to support ownership. The Bench stressed that regardless of the
claimant's status as the rightful owner, possession, once properly established, carries with it
an inalienable right to protection against any attempt at dispossession.
The ruling of the Jijiga High Court, whose ruling formed the foundation for the current
appeal, was also duly acknowledged by the Bench. The aforementioned principles were
found to be in harmony with the overall legal structure and to be in line with the core
principles of property law. With due consideration for its obligation to preserve the integrity
of the legal system, the Cassation Bench has decided to sustain the Jijiga High Court's
decision. This Bench finds that the possessor will be protected from any attempt at
dispossession, regardless of any ownership claim made by another party, provided that they
have properly proven their right to possession and subsequently entitlement to protection
thereon.
Thus, the decision of the Cassation Bench is hereby rendered, upholding the decision of the
High Court of Jijiga and affirming the possessor's rights as entrenched within the articles of
the Civil Code, in accordance with the previously mentioned analysis and legal rationale.
E. Analysis of the Case and Comment on the Decision of the Court:

There are two main points that are observed in this case:
 1. The plaintiffs petition to court for the cessation of interference by the defendant
2. The defendant contesting ownership rights.

Both the respondent's ownership rights and the appellant’s possession were established by
evidence, thus, there was no doubt about either. This bench's primary point of controversy
was whether or not exercising one's property rights is interference. Despite this, the ruling
made by the Somali Supreme Court goes beyond the central contention of the case. It is
preferable if the respondent brings petitory action regarding his ownership rather than using
his ownership right as justification for a lawsuit filed against interference with the property's
possessory right. The disagreement over ownership right should emerge exclusively between
the public administration and the person who claims ownership, and it should not influence
the possessor's rights. Furthermore, by virtue of Article 1148 of the Civil Code, the plaintiffs
are entitled to protection against dispossession and other forms of interference as the in-rem
right holder of the property in question. He will have no other option except to file a lawsuit
against them, claiming that he was the rightful owner in accordance with Civil Code Article
1206. These compelling arguments led one to conclude that the cassation court made the
correct choice.
Note
The city administration's confiscation of property was not sufficiently justified because there
is no legal basis mentioned and there may have been a flaw in the applicant's possession. We
were unaware of any alternative means or legal basis that would permit the city
administration to seize the owner's property and to the extent of entering into a juridical act.
To the best of our understanding, however, even in cases where there is a fault in possession,
no one can forcibly interfere with another person's possessory right under property law.