ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF LAW AND GOVERNANCE STUDIES

SCHOOL OF LAW

LAW OF EVIDENCE ASSINMENT

NAME : KASAHUN AMDE

ID : UGR /9843/ 13

SUBMITTED TO : MR. YOSEPH

 MAY 18, ADDIS ABEBA

ETHIOPIA

1.The plaintiff argued that the company should be dissolved because it had lost more
than 50% of its capital, and under Article 46 of the statute of the company, it is
provided to dissolve the company if it loses half of its capital. The defendant, on the
other hand, argued that the company should not be dissolved because it had not
sustained any losses. The fact in issue is whether the present situation of the
company is such as to justify the dissolution or whether the company has lost fifty
percent of its capital.

The court found that the following items of evidence were relevant:

 The minutes of the Extraordinary General Assembly that no decision could be

reached as to the dissolution of the company due to the equal division of votes.

 The closing balance sheet showing a loss of E$12,130.70 for the financial year
ending 30 April 1960.

These facts are considered relevant because they are the facts that are necessary to
decide the case. In this case, the court was asked to decide whether the company
should be dissolved. The key facts that the court considered were the company's
financial situation and the fact that there was an equal division of votes at the general
meetings of the company. These facts were relevant because they showed that the
company was unable to continue operating as a going concern.

The court found that the following items of evidence were irrelevant:

 The plaintiff’s allegation towards the defendant saying the defendant ca not be
trusted with the affairs or the money of the company.

 The plaintiff’s allegation towards the defendant saying the defendant is in unable
to be the technical expert of the company.

 The plaintiff’s allegation towards the defendant saying he had committed criminal
criminal acts and charges were brought against him.
 Letters dated after the opening of the file complaining about the quality of
materials supplied by the company.

 Exhibits concerning the history of the company.

 Correspondence with the State Bank of Ethiopia and the Development Bank
regarding loans made to the Company.

 Acts of sale of machinery.

The court found that the allegations the plaintiff made against the defendant
complaining about the trustworthiness, inability to be technical expert, charged
criminally were irrelevant because they did not relate to the issue of whether the
company should be dissolved or the issue the company lost 50% of its capital. The
court found that the exhibits concerning the history of the company and the
correspondence with the State Bank of Ethiopia and the Development Bank were
irrelevant because they did not relate to the issue of whether the company had lost
money. The court found that the acts of sale of machinery were irrelevant because
they did not relate to the issue of whether it was impossible to come to any decision
concerning the business of the company.

2. The court judicially noticed the fact that it is commonly believed in Ethiopian
society that a stepmother always tries to separate her husband's children from their
father. This fact was relevant to the case because it was used by the court to support
its conclusion that the respondent's stepmother was not the reason why the respondent
did not nurse her father when he was sick.

Whether or not the court's judicial notice was proper is arguable. Some people might
argue that the court should not have judicially noticed a fact that is based on a
common belief, because common beliefs can be wrong. Others might argue that the
court was justified in judicially noticing the fact, because it is a well-known fact in
Ethiopian society and it was relevant to the case. In my opinion the court’s judicial
notice was proper in this case because it is relevant in the case and there was no
opposition from the other party to refute the judicial notice.