The case relates to an inheritance dispute over rural land and begins with the plaintiff's

(respondent's) lawsuit against the defendant (applicant) in Arsi zone diigluna tijo wereda
(district) court. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit on 08/11/2005 stating that the plaintiff's father, who
died in 2001, had leased the land to the defendant while he was still alive. The plaintiff had
requested the defendant to give back the three plots of land because the defendant will get the
land through inheritance but the defendant has refused to release the three plots of land described
in the lawsuit, which the plaintiff's father had leased to the defendant while he was still alive.
The court ordered the plaintiff to hand over the land to the plaintiff on 18/11/2005, but the
defendant refused by stating that the plaintiff's parents had given him the right to use the land in
accordance with civil code article 2427 dated 26/2/2009. Plaintiff's parents transferred the title
deed of the land to the defendant through gift, while the plaintiff's parents are alive. Defendant
contended that he was using the title deed while the plaintiff's parents were alive; and that the
plaintiffs' brothers had filed a lawsuit against the defendant in another case, arguing that the case
was closed.

The court ruled in favour of the defendant and the relevant body, stating that the plaintiff's
parents had given him the right to use the land as a gift on 26/02/2007 and that the plaintiff's
parents were transferring the title deed through a gift to the defendant while they were still alive.
The court dismissed the case because there was no legal basis for the question of inheritance and
ruled that the defendant should not be compelled to leave the plot of land. Following the
plaintiff's appeal, the regional high Court which heard the case ruled in favour of the defendant.
Thus, the regional high court has upheld the decision of the regional district court.

The decision of the cassation

The supreme court of cassation, after hearing the left-right argument, cited article 6 of the rural
land use and administration proclamation no. 130/2007, stating that a person could not transfer
the right to use rural land to a person who is not related to the right holder. It ruled that the plot
of land should be given back to the plaintiff. The content of the petition filed by the plaintiff is
that the decision of the lower Courts should be corrected as it is a fundamental error of law. The
cassation petition was examined and the plaintiff was informed of the legality of the disputed
land on November 28, 2007. The supreme court of cassation rejected the decision of the lower
courts because the defendant was not a family member and did not have the right to receive land.
Accordingly, the plaintiff's parents transferred the right to use the disputed land to the defendant
under a contract dated 26/02/2007, and the defendant got the title deed of the plot of land. It is
undeniable and disputed that the defendant is using the title deed to himself and that the
defendant is not a member of the plaintiff's family or income-generating family. The state rural
land administration and use proclamation no. 130/2007 does not allow the transfer of gifts unless
you are a member of the family. The defendant also argues that the decision of the regional
cassation court was a fundamental error of law, arguing that the grant was legally valid under the
provisions of the civil code. The federal government rural land administration and use
proclamation no. 456/2005 and the proclamations and regulations enacted following this
proclamation are primarily applicable to disputes related to rural land administration and use,
including the transfer of the right to use agricultural land in rural areas. The defendant's argument
in this regard is not legally valid. As long as it is established that the dispute was initiated while
the regional rural land administration and use proclamation no. 130/2007 came into force, the
fact that the contract was made eight months before the proclamation came into force does not
preclude the application of the relevant proclamation.

Personal opinion

I agree with the supreme court of cassation decision: a person cannot transfer his right to use
rural land to another person who is not a family member by gift. Proclamation No.456/2005,
article 5(2) explicitly states that "any person who is member of a peasant farmer, semi pastoralist
and pastoralist family having the right to use rural land may get rural land from his family by
donation, inheritance or from the competent authority". The defendant has argued that the
transfer of the right to use rural land by gift is legally valid under civil code. This argument is
inherently incorrect because proclamation No.456/2005 mainly applies to disputes that are
associated with rural land administration and use. Thus, in this case, we use first the
proclamation, not the civil code.