2.1.

2 Objectives of Research
The purpose of research, thus, is to acquire knowledge or to know about something in a
scientific and systematic way. Its purpose may, however, be to find solution to the identified
problem. The former is referred to as basic or pure or fundamental research while the latter
takes the label of applied or action research. Fundamental research is mainly concerned with
generalizations and with formulation of a theory (or re-confirmation of the existing theory). Its
main aim is to acquire knowledge for the sake of acquiring it. Applied research, on the other
hand, aims at finding or discovering solutions or answers to the identified problem(s) or
question(s). Obviously, every research study has its own goal(s) or objective(s). Nevertheless,
research objective of a given research study may fall under either of the following broad
categories of research objectives:
1. To gain familiarity with a phenomenon or to achieve new insights into it.
2. To portray accurately the characteristics of a particular individual, situation or a group.
3. To determine the frequency with which something occurs or with which it is associated.
chilot.wordpress.com 13
4. To test causal relationship between two or more than two facts or situations. 10
5. To know and understand a phenomenon with a view to formulating the problem precisely.
6. To describe accurately a given phenomenon and to test hypotheses about relationships among
its different dimensions
To investigate gap between the legal ideals and actual practice.
ii. To understand effectiveness or impact of law in a given social set-up at a given time.
iii. To find out as to whether law is serving the needs of the society and has a social value.
iv. To make suggestions for improvements in the law on concrete formulations and proposals.
v. To predict future trends of law.
2.5.2 Scope of Legal Research in the Common Law System and the Civil Law System
At this juncture, it is necessary to have some broad, but pertinent, observations about the nature
and scope of legal research in the common law and civil law systems. In the common law
system, Legislature enacts substantive law. Executive wing of a State, drawing authorization
from a substantive law, supplements the substantive law in the form of rules, regulations,
statutory orders, notifications and byelaws. While courts, as and when called upon, interpret the
law and gives finality to it through their judicial pronouncements. Courts, particularly higher
ones, however, do not only apply law to the facts and issues brought and agitated before
them but also, through their judicial pronouncements, make law. 24 They are, generally,
bestowed with wide judicial discretion. They are empowered to determine legality as well as
adjudicate finality of law or legal provision. The lower courts are bound by precedent. In
the common law system, therefore, the basic assumption is that if there is a judicial decision in

the past having facts and legal issues similar to those in the case currently before the court, the
outcome of the past case should control the outcome of the present case. Therefore, in the
common law system Legislature, Executive as well as Judiciary do constitute source of law. A
legal researcher, with a view to understanding law on a particular topic or subject, therefore has
to locate, appreciate and analyze apt Acts of Parliament, subsidiary legislative instruments, if
any, and judicial pronouncements. He has to focus his attention on the primary source materials,
like the Constitution and Statutes (along with statutory instruments), and leading judicial
pronouncements (the precedents). By contrast, in the civil law system, Acts of Parliament,
supplemented by appropriate Regulations and Directives, if any, do constitute primary sources
of law. Courts are required only to apply them. In no way, they are expected to make law
through their judicial pronouncements. Hence, the law of precedent, unlike in common law
jurisdictions, is irrelevant. Nevertheless, a judicial statement of a higher court may have an
inspirational or persuasive value in terms of its reasoning. In civil law system, a legal researcher,
with a view understanding law on a topic, therefore, has to merely concentrate on the primary
sources of law . However, there is hardly any material difference in the nature and scope of legal
research in these two legal systems- the common law and the civil law system. In both the
systems, broad strategy and utility of legal research is alike. They only differ in their emphasis
on the material required/used for carrying out legal research. A legal researcher from the
common law jurisdiction relies heavily upon, and gives importance to, apt statutory materials
(the Constitution, statutes and other statutory instruments) and case reports (including case
comments and case digests) for ascertaining, understanding and appreciating law on the
topic or area of his inquiry. A legal researcher from a civil law system, on the other hand, focuses
and prominently relies on the statutory materials for ascertaining, understanding, and
appreciating law. Under both the legal systems, a researcher has to resort to identical methods
of data collection and of analysis when he is interested in highlighting social dimension of law
or gap between the legal idealism and social reality or assessing impact of law on the social
behavioral pattern. In other words, the strategy and paradigm of socio-legal research in both the
systems are similar. Ethiopia is a civil law country. Nevertheless, the Ethiopian legal system
exhibits some common law elements. In fact, foreign Commissions, headed by the persons
having influence of continental civil and English common law, drafted the following six basic
Codes, which constitute the real body of law of Ethiopia. They are: (i) the Penal Code of 1957
(drafted by the Commission headed by Professor Jean Graven of Switzerland); (ii) the Civil
Code of 1960 (drafted by the Commission headed by Professor R David of France); (iii) the
Maritime Code of 1960 (drafted by the Commission headed by Professor J Escarra of France);
(iv) the Commercial Code of 1960 (drafted by the chilot.wordpress.com 29 Commission headed
by Professor J. Escarra of France and A. Jauffret of France); (v) the Criminal Procedure Code of
1961 (drafted by the Commission headed by Sir Charles Matthews of England), and (vi) the
Civil Procedure Code of 1965 (drafted by the Commission headed by Ato Nirayo Esayas,
Assistant Minister of Codification of the Ethiopian Ministry of Justice). Though some of these
Codes are subsequently modified and revised, their basic framework remained intact. Further,
though the common law doctrine of stare decisis is not applicable in Ethiopia, it would be of
interest to note that the recently enacted Proclamation No. 454/200525 inserted sub-Article (4) in
Article 10 of the Proclamation No. 25/199626 to explicitly make decisions of the cassation

division of the Federal Supreme Court binding on federal and regional council at all levels. It
also, in a way, statutorily recognized the power of the cassation division to overrule its earlier
decisions. The newly inserted sub-Article (4) runs as under: Interpretation of a low (sic) by the
Federal Supreme Court rendered by the cassation division with not less than five judges shall be
binding on federal as well as regional council at all levels. The cassation division may however
render a different legal interpretation some other time.27 It would be of further interest to note
here that the Proclamation of 454/2005 also inserted Sub-Article (5) in Article 10 of the
Proclamation 95/1996 to mandate the Federal Supreme Court to publish and distribute decisions
of the Cassation Division having such binding character. It says: The Federal Supreme Court
shall publish and distribute decisions of the cassation division that contain binding interpretation
of laws to all levels of courts and other relevant bodies. Thus, the Ethiopian legal system has,
thus, some common law elements too.