Untitled Quiz

Cross Examination is considered “The greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth”
To discredit the witness's testimony to persuade the court to disregard it
To expose inconsistencies or omissions in the witness's testimony
Impeaching credibility can be done through exposing biases, inconsistencies in prior statements, poor reputation for truthfulness or previous convictions related to trustworthiness

The proponent tries to rehabilitate the witness's testimony and minimize damage caused by cross-examination
Re-examination is only permitted to clarify matters raised during cross-examination.
Clarification means showing:
- the original testimony is believable
- rebutting unfavorable evidence from cross-examination.
Leading questions are not regulated for re-examination in the Ethiopian CPC

The Ethiopian CPC grants courts substantial power in witness examination and document production during trial
The court can question witnesses at any time during the examination
The court has the power to call witnesses that were not called by the parties and may request them to produce relevant documents
The court can recall any previously examined witness for further questioning, restricting parties from additional questioning

A party present in court without a valid excuse, refusing to provide evidence or produce a document when ordered by the court may face judgment against them or other consequences.
The judgment may be based on contempt of court or refusal of justice
Alternatively, the court may issue orders similar to what it would issue to a recalcitrant witness

The evidence of each witness shall start with their name, age, occupation, address, and an indication of whether they have been sworn or affirmed.
The evidence is recorded in writing by the presiding judge or, if that's not possible, by another judge or clerk under the presiding judge’s direction.
The recorded evidence is divided into examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and re-examination with clear markers for each section.
The evidence is typically recorded narratively with the option for the presiding judge to specifically record certain question-and-answer exchanges.
The record is signed by the court upon completion.
Recording objections to questions is mandatory, including the question, the answer, the objection, the objector's name, and the court's ruling.

Judgments must be publicly pronounced and accessible, reasoned, and delivered within a reasonable time
This ensures transparency and fairness in the administration of justice, safeguarding individuals from arbitrary decisions.
Public access to judicial decisions helps avoid secret justice, protects against abuse of the judicial process, and maintains trust in the legal system.

Judgments are pronounced in open court, either immediately or at a designated future date.
The judgment must be written, signed by the judges of the court, and pronounced by the judge or presiding judge.
A signed judgment can be announced by judges other than those who signed it.
When multiple judges preside, the majority decision becomes the judgment of the court.
Dissenting judges must provide a written explanation for their dissenting opinion.

Unanimous Opinion: All judges agree.
Majority Opinion: When all judges don't agree, a majority opinion outlines the prevailing view of the judges.
Concurring Opinion: Judges who agree with the decision but for different reasons write concurring opinions.
Dissenting Opinion: The minority opinion, written by judges who disagree with the majority opinion.

Summary procedure is available when the plaintiff seeks to recover a debt or liquidated money demand from the defendant.
Claims must arise from contracts (express or implied), bonds, or guarantees involving a liquidated amount.
Key Question: Is the debt amount liquidated (confirmed and fixed)?
The plaintiff must be entitled to a specific sum at the time the lawsuit is filed.
Summary procedures are designed for cases where likely no legitimate defense exists against the plaintiff's claim.

The plaintiff endorses their statement of claim "Summary Procedure" and submits an affidavit verifying their cause of action, the claim amount, and stating that in their belief, there is no defense to the lawsuit.
Instead of the usual summons, a special summons, outlining the obligation and instructing the defendant to seek permission to defend, is issued.
Defendants can only defend the suit if they obtain leave from the court.
If the defendant fails to apply within the designated time, the plaintiff is granted a decree for the claimed amount, interest (where applicable), and costs against the defendant.
After a judgment in the plaintiff's favor, further legal actions such as evidence admissions, witness examinations, or document production can be pursued by the court.

There are two perspectives on the role of the appellate court in reviewing findings of fact:
- The appellate court fully depends on the findings of the lower court.
- The appellate court has decision-making power regarding findings of fact.
In Ethiopia, the appellate court does not have to accept all factual findings of the lower court.
The Code does not explicitly define the appellate court's relationship to the lower court's findings of fact.
If the appeal is not a re-trial, the appellate court must, at least partially, accept the lower court's findings.
The appellate court typically depends on the record and documentary evidence, as they have not heard the witnesses directly.
For uncontested evidence, all-documentary evidence, or when the evidence simply requires interpretation, the appellate court is equally qualified to draw conclusions as the lower court.
For primarily oral evidence, where decisions hinge on credibility, the lower court's assessment carries greater weight.