BLOG

WELCOME TO MOHAJER SEMAN SURAFEL BLOG WEBSITES HOME PAGES

 አንቀጽ 9፡ የሕገ መንግሥት የበላይነት/Article 9 Rule of the Constitution

 1- The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any law, customary practice, or decision of a government body or authority that is inconsistent with this Constitution shall not apply.

 2. Every citizen, government body, political association, other associations and their officials shall have the responsibility to uphold the Constitution and abide by the Constitution.

 3. It is prohibited to hold public office in any capacity other than that provided for in this Constitution.

 4. The international conventions ratified by Ethiopia are part of the country's law.

 አንቀጽ 9፡ የሕገ መንግሥት የበላይነት

 1- ሕገ መንግሥቱ የሀገሪቱ የበላይ ሕግ ነው። ማንኛውም ሕግ፣ ልማዳዊ አሰራር፣ እንዲ ሁም የመንግሥት አካል ወይም ባለሥ ልጣን ውሳኔ ከዚህ ሕገ መንግሥት ጋር የሚቃረን ከሆነ ተፈጻሚነት አይኖረውም።

 2- ማንኛወም ዜጋ፣ የመንግሥት አካላት፣ የፖ ለቲካ ድርጅቶች፣ ሌሎች ማኅበራት እን ዲሁም ባለሥልጣኖቻቸው፣ ሕገ መንግሥቱን የማስከበርና ለሕገ መንግሥቱ ተገዢ የመሆን ኃላፊነት አለባቸው።

 3- በዚህ ሕገ መንግሥት ከተደነገገው ውጭ በማናቸውም አኳኋን የመንግሥት ሥልጣን መያዝ የተከለከለ ነው።

 4- ኢትዮጵያ ያጸደቀቻቸው ዓለም አቀፍ ስምም ነቶች የሀገሪቱ ሕግ አካል ናቸው

My YouTube Videos

የአስተዳደር ህግ ንድፈ ሃሳባዊ አቅጣጫዎች።

 ንድፈ ሃሳባዊ አቅጣጫዎች።

በአንድ ህብረተሰብ ውስጥ የህግ ሚና ውስብስብ ነው፡፡ የአስተዳደር ህግ በመንግስት አስተዳደር ስራ ወይም በአስተዳደራዊ ሂደት ውስጥ ሊኖረው የሚችለው አዎንታዊና አሉታዊ ተጽዕኖ እና ውጤት ተግባራዊ የሆነ ጥናትና ትንተና የሚያስፈልገው ጉዳይ ሆኗል፡፡ ከተግባራዊ መመዘኛው በተጨማሪ ዓይነተኛ ሚና እና ተግባሩን በተመለከተ የሚቀረጽበት ማዕዘን ወይም እይታ በተለያዩ ወገኖች የተለያየ አቋም ተይዞበት ይገኛል፡፡ ብዙዎቹ እንደሚስማሙበት ግን የአስተዳደር ህግ ለብቻው ተነጥሎ የሚጠና የህግ ክፍል ሳይሆን መሰረት ከሆኑት ተጨባጭ ፖለቲካዊ፤ ኢኮኖሚያዊና ማህበራዊ ሁኔታዎች ግንኙነት፤ ግጭትና ስምምነት እንዲሁም መስተጋብራዊ ውጤት አንጻር መታየት ይኖርበታል፡፡

ምንም እንኳን የአስተዳደር ህግን በተመለከተ ጐራ ለይቶ የተቀመጠ ፍንትው ያለ ንድፈ ሀሳብ ባይኖርም ጠቅለል ባለ መልኩ በሁለት አቅጣጫዎች እየተጓዘ ይገኛል፡፡ ሃርሎው እና ሮውሊንግ የተባሉ የአስተዳደር ህግ አጥኝዎች እነዚህን ሁለት ንድፈ ሀሳባዊ አቅጣጫዎች በመለየት ‘የቀይ መብራት’ (የቁም!) ንድፈ ሀሳብ እና ‘የአረንጓዴ መብራት’ (የእለፍ!) ንድፈ ሀሳብ የሚል ስያሜ በመስጠት የሚያንፀባርቁትንና የሚወክሉትን አቋም በተመለከተ ትንተና አቅርበዋል፡፡^a

በዚሁ መሰረት የመጀመሪያው የቁም ንድፈ ሀሳብ በአቀራረቡ ወግ አጥባቂ ሲሆን ቁጥጥርን ዓይነተኛ የአስተዳደር ህግ ሚና አድርጐ ይወስዳል፡፡ ንድፈ ሀሳቡ ከአስተዳደር ህግ መጸነስና መወለድ ጋር አብሮ የዳበረ የኋለኛው ዘመን (traditional) እይታን ያንጸባርቃል፡፡ ይህ ሲባል ግን ታሪካዊ ውልደቱንና አመጣጡን ለማሳየት እንጂ በአሁኑ ወቅት በተግባር የሚገለፅ አቀራረብ እንዳልሆነ ለመጠቆም አይደለም፡፡ የአስተዳደር ህግ የተነሳበት ዋነኛ አጀንዳ በየጊዜው እየጨመረ የመጣውን የመንግስት ስልጣን በቅጡ መቆጣጠርና በዚህም የዜጐች መብትና ጥቅም እንዳይጣስ መከላከል ነው፡፡ የመንግስት ተቋማትና ባለስልጣናት ከስልጣናቸው ገደብ አልፈው በሚፈፅሙት ድርጊት የተነሳ በዜጐች ላይ በደል እንዳይደርስ ስልጣናቸው እንደፈረስ ልጓም መቆጣጠሪያ መሳሪያ ያስፈልገዋል፡፡

በቁም ንድፈ ሀሳብ መሰረት ይህ መሳሪያ የአስተዳደር ህግ ነው፡፡ የቁጥጥር መሳሪያ ከሆኑት መንገዶች አንዱ የአስተዳደራዊ ውሳኔ ህጋዊት በፍ/ቤቶች የሚታረምበት የአጣሪ ዳኝነት ስርዓት አንዱና ዋነኛው ሲሆን የቁም ንድፈ ሀሳብ ፍ/ቤቶች አስተዳደራዊ ተቋማትን የመቆጣጠር ጠንካራ ሚና እንዲኖራቸው በአጽንኦት ይከራከራል፡፡^b

የንድፈ ሀሳቡን ዳራ በቅጡ ለመረዳት ምንጩ ከሆነው የነፃ ገበያ የፖለቲካ ፍልስፍና አንፃር መመርመሩ ጠቃሚ ነው፡፡ በዚህ ርዕዮተ ዓለማዊ እይታ ምርጥ መንግስት ማለት የታቀበ መንግስት ነው፡፡ ፒተር ለይላንድ እና ቴሪ ውድስ ይህንኑ በማጉላት እንዲህ ይላሉ፤

‘የቁም ንድፈ ሀሳብ’ አመጣጡ በ19ኛው ክፍለ ዘመን ሰፍኖ ከነበረው የነፃ ገበያ ንድፈ ሀሳብ ነው፡፡ ነፃ ገበያ ለግለሰለቦች ነፃነት ከፍተኛ ትኩረት በመስጠት በአንፃሩ ግን የመንግስትን ስልጣን በጥርጣሬ በማየት ውስን አገዛዝን በዋነኛነት ይደግፋል፡፡^c

የነፃ ገበያ ስርዓት ነፀብራቅ የሆነው የቁም ንድፈ ሀሳብ የመንግስትን ረጃጅም እጆች ለማሳጠር የአስተዳደር ህግን እንደ መቆጣጠሪያ መሳሪያ ይጠቀምበታል፡፡ ጠንካራ መንግስት በግለሰቦች እንቅስቃሴ ውስጥ በየጊዜው ጣልቃ እየገባ ስለሚያስቸግር የግለሰቦች ነፃነት ጠር ተደርጎ ይቆጠራል፡፡ በተግባር እንደታየው ግን ከ19ኛው ክፍለ ዘመን ወዲህ የመንግስት ስልጣንና ሚና ከመቼውም ጊዜ የበለጠ እያደገ መጥቷል፡፡ የተለያየ ተግባራትን የሚያከናውኑ የአስተዳደር ተቋማት ቁጥርም ከጊዜ ወደ ጊዜ እያሻቀበ ይገኛል፡፡ እነዚህ ተቋማት በህግ አውጭው በሚሰጣቸው ስልጣን መሰረት መጠነ ሰፊ ተግባራትን ያከናውናሉ፡፡ በቁም ንድፈ ሀሳብ መሰረት በታሪክ ሂደት እያደገ የመጣውን የመንግስት ስልጣንና በየጊዜው የሚፈጠሩትን የአስተዳደር ተቋማት ከግለሰቦች ነፃነት ጐን ለጐን አጣጥሞ መሄድ የሚቻለው በህግ ማዕቀፍ ጠንካራ ቁጥጥር ሲደረግባቸው ነው፡፡

ሁለተኛውን የእለፍ ንድፈ ሀሳብ ያየን እንደሆነ ከስሙ ለመረዳት እንደሚቻለው ለመንግስት ስልጣንና ለአስተዳደር ተቋማት የአረንጓዴ መብራት ማለትም የእለፍ ፈቃድ ይሰጣል፡፡ በዚህ ንድፈ ሀሳብ መሰረት የአስተዳደር ህግ ዋነኛ ሚና የመንግስትን ስራ ማቀላጠፍ ነው፡፡ ጣልቃ ገብነት ሳይኖር ሲቀር የመንግስት ቢሮክራሲ ውጤታማ በሆነ መንገድ ይሰራል፡፡ ስለሆነም የአስተዳደር ህግ የውሳኔ አሰጣጥ ስርዓትን ቀልጣፋ እንዲሆን በማድረግ ውጤታማነትን ማበረታታት ይኖርበታል፡፡ አስተዳደር በቁጥጥር ሰበብ እጆቹ የሚታሰሩ ከሆነ ተጨማሪ አስተዳደራዊ በደልን ከማስከተል በቀር ፋይዳ የለውም፡፡

ፖለቲካዊ ዳራውን ያየን እንደሆነ የማህበራዊ ዲሞክራሲ (social democracy) ንድፈ ሀሳብ ነፀብራቅ ነው፡፡^d በዚህ ፖለቲካዊ ንድፈ ሀሳብ መሰረት መንግስት በማህበራዊና ኢኮኖሚያዊ እንቅስቃሴዎች ውስጥ አዎንታዊ በሆነ መንገድ በመሳተፍ አቅም ለሌለው ህብረተሰብ ማህበራዊ አገልግሎት ማቅረብ ይኖርበታል፡፡ በዚህ ሂደት የአስተዳደር ህግ የ‘መንገድ ጠራጊነት’ ሚና ሊኖረው ይገባል፡፡

የእለፍ እና የቁም ንድፈ ሀሳባዊ አቅጣጫዎች በየፊናቸው የአስተዳደር ህግን ዓይነተኛ ሚና ያንፀባርቃሉ፡፡ ስለሆነም የመጀመሪያው የማቀብ፤ ሁለተኛው ደግሞ የማሳለጥ ሚናዎችን ይወክላሉ፡፡ ፒተር ኬን ይህንን ሀሳብ እንደሚከተለው በተብራራ መልኩ ይገልጸዋል፡፡

We can think about government as having a complex set of (‘policy’) objectives and about administrative law as both facilitating and constraining the realization of those objectives. Law can facilitate by defining objectives and by creating institutions, conferring powers, and establishing processes for realizing those objectives. Law can constrain by specifying how such institutions must behave in operating such processes and exercising such powers lawfully, fairly, reasonably, and so on. Law as facilitator is concerned primarily with ends; law as constraint is concerned primarily with means to ends.

ከላይ የቀረበው ሀሳብ እንደሚያስረዳን ‘እለፍ’ እና ‘ቁም’ ተብለው የተፈረጁት አመለካከቶች ተነጣጥለው የቆሙ አይደሉም፡፡ ዲሞክራሲያዊ ገፅታው ግምት ውስጥ ሳይገባ ማንኛውም የመንግስት አስተዳደር ስራ የሚሰራው የስልጣን አሰጣጥንና እና መገልገልን በሚመሩ ህጎች እየታገዘ ነው፡፡

UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHT IN WORLD OF DIVERSE BELIEFS AND PRACTICES

Universal Human Rights in a World of Diverse Beliefs and Practices

Human rights prescribe universal standards in areas such as security, law enforcement, equality, political participation, and education. The peoples and countries of planet Earth are, however, enormously varied in their practices, traditions, religions, and levels of economic and political development. Putting these two propositions together may be enough to generate the worry that universal human rights do not sufficiently accommodate the diversity of Earth's peoples. A theoretical expression of this worry is “relativism,” the idea that ethical, political, and legal standards for a particular country or region are mostly shaped by the traditions, beliefs, and conditions of that country or region (see the entry on moral relativism). The anthropologist William G. Sumner, writing in 1906, asserted that “the mores can make anything right and prevent condemnation of anything” (Sumner 1906, 521).

Relativists sometimes accuse human rights advocates of ethnocentrism, arrogance, and cultural imperialism (Talbott 2005, 39–42). Ethnocentrism is the assumption, usually unconscious, that “one’s own group is the center of everything” and that its beliefs, practices, and norms provide the standards by which other groups are “scaled and rated” (Sumner 1906, 12–13). This can lead to arrogance and intolerance in dealings with other countries, ethical systems, and religions. Finally, cultural imperialism occurs when the economically, technologically, and militarily strongest countries impose their beliefs, values, and institutions on the rest of the world. Relativists often combine these charges with a prescription, namely that tolerance of varied practices and traditions ought to be instilled and practiced through measures that include extended learning about other cultures.

The conflict between relativists and human rights advocates may be partially based on differences in their underlying philosophical beliefs, particularly in metaethics. Relativists are often subjectivists or noncognitivists and think of morality as socially constructed and transmitted. In contrast, philosophically-inclined human rights advocates are more likely to adhere to cognitivism,moral realism, and intuitionism.

During the drafting in 1947 of the Universal Declaration, the Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association warned of the danger that the Declaration would be “a statement of rights conceived only in terms of the values prevalent in Western Europe and America.” Perhaps the main concern of the AAA Board in the period right after World War II was to condemn the intolerant colonialist attitudes of the day and to advocate cultural and political self-determination. But the Board also made the stronger assertion that “standards and values are relative to the culture from which they derive” and thus “what is held to be a human right in one society may be regarded as anti-social by another people” (American Anthropological Association Statement on Human Rights 1947).

This is not, of course, the stance of most anthropologists today. Currently the American Anthropological Association has a Committee on Human Rights whose objectives include promoting and protecting human rights and developing an anthropological perspective on human rights. While still emphasizing the importance of cultural differences, anthropologists now often support cultural survival and the protection of vulnerable cultures; non-discrimination, and the rights and land claims of indigenous peoples.

The idea that relativism and exposure to other cultures promote tolerance may be correct from a psychological perspective. People who are sensitive to differences in beliefs, practices, and traditions, and who are suspicious of the grounds for extending norms across borders, may be more inclined to be tolerant of other countries and peoples than those who believe in an objective universal morality. Still, philosophers have been generally critical of attempts to argue from relativism to a prescription of tolerance (Talbott 2005: 42–44). If the culture and religion of one country has long fostered intolerant attitudes and practices, and if its citizens and officials act intolerantly towards people from other countries, they are simply following their own traditions and cultural norms. They are just doing what relativists think people mostly do. Accordingly, a relativist from a tolerant country will be hard-pressed to find a basis for criticizing the citizens and officials of the intolerant country. To do so the relativist will have to endorse a transcultural principle of tolerance and to advocate as an outsider cultural change in the direction of greater tolerance. Because of this, relativists who are deeply committed to tolerance may find themselves attracted to a qualified commitment to human rights.

East Asia is the region of the world that participates least in the international human rights system—even though many East Asian countries do participate. In the 1990s Singapore's Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew and others argued that international human rights as found in United Nations declarations and treaties were insensitive to distinctive “Asian values” such as prizing families and community (in contrast to strong individualism); putting social harmony over personal freedom; respect for political leaders and institutions; and emphasizing responsibility, hard work, and thriftiness as means of social progress (on the Asian Values debate see Bauer and Bell 1999; Bell 2000; Sen 1997; and Twining 2009). Proponents of the Asian values idea did not wish to abolish all human rights; they rather wanted to deemphasize some families of human rights, particularly the fundamental freedoms and rights of democratic participation (and in some cases the rights of women). They also wanted Western governments and NGOs to stop criticizing them for human rights violations in these areas.

At the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna, countries including Singapore, Malaysia, China, and Iran advocated accommodations within human rights practice for cultural and economic differences. Western representatives tended to view the position of these countries as excuses for repression and authoritarianism. The Conference responded by approving the Vienna Declaration. It included in Article 5 the assertion that countries should not pick and choose among human rights: “All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis. While the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

Perhaps the debate about relativism and human rights has become obsolete. In recent decades widespread acceptance of human rights has occurred in most parts of the world. Three quarters of the world’s countries have ratified the major human rights treaties, and many countries in Africa, the Americas, and Europe participate in regional human rights regimes that have international courts (see 5.4 Regional Arrangements below). Further, all of the world's countries now use similar political institutions (law, courts, legislatures, executives, militaries, bureaucracies, police, prisons, taxation, and public schools) and these institutions carry with them characteristic problems and abuses (Donnelly 2003: 46, 92; Nickel 2007, 173–4). Finally, globalization has diminished the differences among peoples. Today’s world is not the one that early anthropologists and missionaries found. National and cultural boundaries are breached not just by international trade but also by millions of travelers and migrants, electronic communications, international law covering many areas, and the efforts of international governmental and non-governmental organizations. International influences and organizations are everywhere and countries borrow freely and regularly from each other’s inventions and practices.

Worldwide polls on attitudes towards human rights are now available and they show broad support for human rights and international efforts to promote them. A December 2011 report by the Council on Foreign Relations surveyed recent international opinion polls on human rights that probe agreement and disagreement with propositions such as “People have the right to express any opinion,” “People of all faiths can practice their religion freely,” “Women should have the same rights as men,” “People of different races [should be] treated equally,” and governments “should be responsible for ensuring that [their] citizens can meet their basic need for food.” Big majorities of those polled in countries such as Argentina, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Iran, Kenya, Nigeria, China, India, and Indonesia gave affirmative answers. Further, large majorities (on average 70%) in all the countries polled supported UN efforts to promote the human rights set out in the Universal Declaration. Empirical research can now replace or supplement theoretical speculations about how much disagreement on human rights exists worldwide.

የህግ ግምት

ህግ ግምት(የ—)

ይመለከቷል: ሕሊና ግምት(የ—)

ሕግ አውጪው ለግምት መነሻ ከሚሆኑ የተወሰኑ ፍሬ ጉዳዮች በመነሳት አንድ ድርጊት ተፈፅሟል ወይም አልተፈፀመም ብሎ የሚደርስበትን መደምደሚያ በሕግ የሚደነግጋቸው ሁኔታዎች

የሕግ ግምቶች ዳኞች አንድን ፍሬ ጉዳይ የተፈፀመ ወይም ያልተፈፀመ መሆኑን በማስረጃ በማረጋገጥ ረገድ የሚገጥማቸውን ክፍተት በመሙላትና የማስረዳት ሸክም ያለበትን ወገን ጫናውን በማቃለል በኩል የላቀ ጠቀሜታ ያላቸው መሆኑ ይታመናል፡፡ ጠቅለል ባለ መልኩ ሲታይም የሕግ (የህሊና) ግምት ዓይነተኛ ዓላማ የማስረዳት ሸክም ያለበትን ወገን ጫና የማቃለል፣ ውሳኔ ሠጪ አካልንም ተገቢና ግልፅ ሆኖ የሚታይ የጠራ ማስረጃ ካላገኘ ወደ ውሳኔ በአፋጣኝ እና በቀላሉ እንዲደርስ ከፍተኛ ጠቀሜታ የሚሠጥ መሆኑ ይታመናል፡፡ የሕግ ግምት ለዳኞች የሕሊና ሚዛን እድል የማይሰጥ ዳኞች የነገሩን ሁኔታ በማየት ሲፈልጉ የሚጠቀሙበት፣ ከነገሩ ሁኔታ አንፃር አስፈላጊ ሆኖ ካላገኙት የሚተውት ፈቃጅ የሆነ የሕግ ግምት አይደለም፡፡ በአንጻሩ የህግ ግምት ድንጋጌ የሚሸፍነው ጉዳይ ባጋጠማቸው ጊዜ ዳኞች ያለምርጫ ሊከተሉትና ሊፈፅሙት የሚገባና አስገዳጅነት ያለው ነው፡፡

ሰ/መ/ቁ. 29181 ቅጽ 10፣ ፍ/ህ/ቁ. 2024(ረ)፣ 2025፣ 2026(1)፣ 2472(2)

በፍትሐብሔር ሕግ ቁጥር 2024 የሰፈረው የሕግ ግምት ተፈፃሚ የሚሆነው በምን ዓይነት ሁኔታ ነው? የሚለው የህግ ትርጉም የሚሰጠው ዋነኛው ነጥብ ሲሆን ተከሣሽ ቀርቦ የቀረበበትን ክስ ባልካደበት ሁኔታ ተፈፃሚ ይሆናል ወይስ አይሆንም? የሚለው ነጥብም ከዚሁ ተያይዞ የሚነሳ ነው፡፡ የሕግ ግምት አፈፃፀም የስረነገር (Substantive) ሕግ እና የስነ ሥርዓት (Procedural) ህግ ገጽታዎች ያሉት ሲሆን ከላይ የተነሱትን ነጥቦች በአግባቡ ለመመለስ የኢትዮጵያ ሕግ በሁለቱም ረገድ ያለውን ዝርዝር ድንጋጌ መመልከትና መረዳት ያስፈልጋል፡፡

በኢትዮጵያ የስረነገር ሕጎች በርካታ የሕግ ግምቶች ያሉ ሲሆን በፍትሐብሔር ሕጉ ቁጥር 2024 የሰፈረው ግምት ስለ ውሎች ማስረጃ በሚመለከተው ክፍል የሚገኝ ሲሆን በውል የሚጠየቅ ገንዘብ እንደተከፈለ ከሚያስቆጥሩ የሕሊና ግምቶች አንዱ ነው፡፡ ይህ ድንጋጌ እዳው እንዲከፈል ከሚገባበት ቀን ጀምሮ እስከ ሁለት ዓመት ሳይከፈሉ የቀሩ በአንቀጹ ተዘርዝረው የተቀመጡትን እዳዎች እንደተከፈሉ ይቆጠራል፡፡ በዚህ ግምት ከሚሸፈኑ እዳዎች መካከል ለቤት ኪራይ የሚከፈል እዳ አንዱ ነው፡፡ (ቁ. 2024/መ) የሕግ ግምቶች መሠረታዊ ውጤት የማስረዳት ሸክምን ከአንዱ ወገን ወደሌላው እንዲሻገር ማድረግ ቢሆንም የማስረዳት ሸክሙ የዞረበት ወገን የሕግ ግምቱን ማፍረስ የሚችልበት የሕግ ሁኔታ ይለያያል፡፡ አንዳንድ የህግ ግምቶች የግምቱ ተጠቃሚ ያልሆነው ወገን ማንኛውንም ዓይነት ማስረጃ በማቅረብ የሚያፈርሳቸው ሲሆኑ (Rebutable Presumption) ሌሎች የሕግ ግምቶች ደግሞ ማንኛውም ዓይነት ማስረጃ በማቅረብ ማፍረስን የማይፈቅዱ (Irrefutable Presumption) ናቸው፡፡

የፍትሐብሔር ሕጉ ከ2020 – 2024 ያሰፈራቸውን የህግ ግምቶች ለማፍረስ ማንኛውንም ዓይነት ማስረጃ ማቅረብ የማይቻል ስለመሆኑ ከሕጉ አንቀጽ 2026(1) ድንጋጌ መገንዘብ ይቻላል፡፡ ይኸው ድንጋጌ ‘’ከዚህ በላይ ባሉት ቁጥሮች ላይ ለተገለጠው የሕሊና ግምት መቃወሚያ የሚሆን ማንኛውም ዓይነት ማስረጃ ለመቀበል አይቻልም‘’ በማለት በሕጉ የሰፈሩትን ግምቶች ለማፍረስ አንደኛው ወገን ማንኛውንም ዓይነት ማስrጃ ማቅረብ እንደማይፈቅዱለት በመርህ ደረጃ በግልጽ አስፍሯል፡፡ ይህ አጠቃላይ መርህ ቢኖርም አንዱ ወገን ይህን አስገዳጅ የህግ ግምት ማፍረስ የሚችለው ሌላው ወገን መሀላ እንዲፈጽምለት በመጠየቅ ብቻ ነው፡፡ በዚህ መልክ ሌላው ወገን መሃላ እንዲወርድለት በመጠየቅ የማስረዳት ሸክሙን ለመወጣት የሚሻ ወገን የፍትሐብሐር ሥነ ሥርዓት ሕግ ቁጥር 83 በሚያዘው መሠረት ይህን ማስረጃውን ክሱን በሚያቀርብበት ወቅት እንዲጠቅስ ይጠበቅበታል፡፡

በውል ሕግ የሰፈሩት እነዚህ ድንጋጌዎች የስረ ነገር ሕግ ክፍሎች በመሆናቸው ፍርድ ቤቶች ሊከተሉዋቸው የሚገባ አስገዳጅ የሕግ ድንጋጌዎች ናቸው፡፡ እነዚህ ድንጋጌዎች የማስረጃን አቀራረብ የሚመለከቱ ከመሆናቸው በስተቀር እንደማንኛውም ሌላ የውል ሕግ ድንጋጌዎች በባለጉዳዮች ቢጠቀሱም ባይጠቀሱም ፍርድ ቤቱ አግባብነት ባለበት ሁኔታ ሁሉ ተፈፃሚ ሊያደርጋቸው የሚገቡ ድንጋጌዎች ናቸው፡፡ ወደ ፍርድ ቤት የሚቀርቡ ባለጉዳዮች ለጉዳያቸው አግባብነት ያለውን ፍሬነገርና የሚጠይቁትን ዳኝነት ከመግለጽ አልፈው በእያንዳንዱ ጉዳይ ላይ ተፈፃሚ የሚሆነውን ወይም የማይሆነውን ድንጋጌ እንዲጠቅሱ አይጠበቅባቸውም፡፡ በመሆኑም በፍትሐብሔር ሕግ ቁጥር 2024 የተጠቀሰውን የሕግ ድንጋጌ ተፈፃሚ ለማድረግ የሚያበቃ ፍሬ ነገር የቀረበለት መሆኑን የተረዳ ፍ/ቤት በዚሁ ድንጋጌ መሠረት የሚሸፈነውን ፍሬ ነገር እንደተረጋገጠ የመቁጠር ግዴታ አለበት፡፡

የሕግ ግምቶችን አስመልክቶ በፍትሐብሔር ሕጉ የሰፈረው ይህ መሠረተ ሃሣብ በፍትሐብሔር ሥነ ሥርዓት ሕጉም በተመሣሣይ መንገድ ተደንግጎ የምናገኘው ነው፡፡ በዚሁ ሕግ መሠረት ማንኛውም ተከሣሽ በመርህ ደረጃ ለፍርድ ቤቱ በሚያቀርበው መልስ ክስ የቀረበበትን ነገር በግልጽና በዝርዝር ማስተባበል ይጠበቅበታል፡፡ በክስ አቤቱታ ላይ የቀረበ ማንኛውም ነገር በግልጽ ካልተካደ እንደታመነ ሊቆጠር እንደሚችልም ይደነግጋል፡፡ ይህ አባባል አጠቃላይ የፍትሐብሔር መደበኛ ሙግት አካሄድን የሚመለከት ቢሆንም ተከሣሹ የሕግ ግምት ተጠቃሚ ሲሆን በግምቱ የሚሸፈነውን ፍሬ ነገር በሚመለከት ይህ ግዴታ እንደሚወርድለት የሕጉ አንቀጽ 89 በግልጽ ያስቀምጣል፡፡ ይህ ድንጋጌ ‘’አስቀድሞ በአንደኛው ወገን አቤቱታ ወይም ሙግት በግልጽ የተካደ ጉዳይ ካልሆነ በቀር አንዱ ወገን ተከራካሪ ህጋዊ በሆነ ግምት የሚደገፍበትን ነገር ወይም ሌላው ወገን ማስረጃ እንዲያቀርብ ተገቢ የሆነበትን ጉዳይ ሌላው ወገን በአቤቱታው ውስጥ መጥቀስ አይገባውም’’ በማለት የሕግ ግምት ተጠቃሚ የሆነ ተሟጋች በሚያቀርበው መልስ በህግ ግምት የተሸፈነውን ፍሬ ነገር በግልጽ የመካድ ግዴታ እንደሌለበት ያመለክታል፡፡

በመሆኑም አንድ ተከሣሽ በሕግ ግምት የተሸፈነውን ፍሬ ነገር በማስመልከት በመልሱ በግልጽና በዝርዝር መካድ አይጠበቅበትም፡፡ በመሆኑም በህግ ግምት የተሸፈነን ጉዳይ በማስመልከት ማንኛውም ፍርድ ቤት ቢሆን ተከሣሹ በግልጽ ስላልካደ እንዳመነ ይቆጠራል በማለት ፍርድ ሊሰጥ አይችልም፡፡ ይህ መሰረተ ሃሣብ በፍትሐብሔር ሕጉ ካለው መሠረተ ሃሣብ ጋር ተመሳሳይ እና የሚጣጣም ነው፡፡ የሕግ ግምትን አስመልክቶ ያለው የሕግ ማእቀፍ ይህ በመሆኑ ፍርድ ቤቶች የሚሰጡት ውሣኔ ይህንኑ መሠረት ያደረገ መሆን ይጠበቅበታል፡፡ ተከሣሹ የሕግ ግምት ተጠቃሚ በሚሆንበት ወቅት የሚከተሉት ሂደትና የሚሰጡት ውሣኔም በሌሎች በመደበኛ የሙግት ሂደት ከሚተከሉዋቸው የሥነ ሥርዓትና የማስረጃ ደንቦች የተለዩ መሆናቸው የማይቀር ነው፡፡ በመሆኑም የቀረበላቸው ፍሬ ነገር በህግ ግምት እስከተሸፈነ ድረስ ፍርድ ቤቶች ተከሣሽ ካደም አልካደ የሕግ ግምቱን ተፈፃሚ ማድረግ ይጠበቅባቸዋል፡፡ ተከሣሹ በሌለበት ጉዳዩ እንዲቀጥል መደረጉም አስገዳጅ በሆኑት የሕግ አንቀጾች አፈጻጸም ላይ የሚያመጣው ለውጥ አይኖርም፡፡ ተከሳሹ ፍርድ ቤት ቢቀርብም በግልጽ እንዲክድ የማይገደደውን ፍሬ ነገር ጉዳዩ እርሱ በሌለበት በመቀጠሉ እንዳመነ የሚቆጠርበት በቂ ሕግ ምክንያት የለም፡፡

ሰ/መ/ቁ. 17068 ቅጽ 1 ፣ ፍ/ህ/ቁ. 2024(መ)፣ 2020-2024፣ ፍ/ስ/ስ/ህ/ቁ. 89

የይርጋ ሕግ አንድ ፍርድ ቤት የቀረበለትን ጉዳይ ፍሬ ነገር መመርመር ሳያስፈልገው አንድን ክስ ውድቅ የሚያደርግበት ሥርዓት ሲሆን የሕግ ግምት ግን ጉዳዩ ፍርድ ቤት ቀርቦ በተከራካሪዎች መካከል የቀረበው ማስረጃ ሲመዘን ተፈጻሚ የሚሆን ደንብ ነው፡፡ በመሆኑም አልፎ አልፎ የውጤት መመሳሰል የሚያጋጥም ቢሆንም የሕግ ግምትን ተፈጻሚ ለማድረግ ፍርድ ቤቱ የቀረበለትን ፍሬ ነገርና አግባብነት ያለውን ሕግ እንዲመረምር የግድ የሚል ሲሆን ይርጋ ግን ጊዜውን በመቁጠር ብቻ ክሱ በፍሬ ነገር ደረጃ እንዳይሰማ የሚያደርግ ሥርዓት ነው፡፡ የፍትሐብሔር ሕጉ ከ2020-2024 ባሉት ድንጋጌዎች የተለያዩ የህግ ግምቶች አስቀምጧል፡፡ እነዚህ የሕግ ግምቶችን እንደብዙዎቹ የህግ ግምቶች አንድ ክስ ለችሎት ቀርቦ በሚታይበት ወቅት የማስረዳት ሸክም ያለበት ማነው? በሕግ የሰፈረውን ግምት ማፍረስ የሚቻለው እንዴት ነው? ወ.ዘ.ተ. የሚሉትን ማስረጃን የሚመለከቱ ጉዳዮችን የሚመለከቱ ድንጋጌዎች እንጂ አንድ ጉዳይ በጊዜ ማለፍ ምክንያት ክስ እንዳይቀርብበት የሚከለክሉ የይርጋ ደንቦች አይደሉም፡፡