- Commercial Law, JV Agreement – Two companies entered into JV Agreement to work on a project. During the performance of the JV, a dispute between the parties took place and it proceeded to UNCITRAL Arbitration as per the agreement they entered. After Request for Arbitration (RFA) was sent to the respondent, it decided to settle the case.
- Contract, Commercial Arbitration – A Company chartered three ships to another company by charter party and contract of affreightment to deliver goods. Due to delay in payment, the charterer began arbitration proceedings and approached Michael Teshome Law Office for representation in relation to signing settlement agreement and obtaining injunction at the Federal High Court. During the arbitration, the respondent admitted to pay partially and we had to carefully draft the settlement agreement. After signing the settlement agreement, the respondent settled the pending payments even without opening file at the Federal High Court for the purpose of enforcing the settlement agreement and obtaining injunction.
- Labor, Unlawful Termination of Employment Contract – The case began when the defendant, employer, Grade 1 Construction Company, unlawfully terminated the plaintiff’s contract of employment. The case began a year and half ago. The defendant contended that the termination is barred by limitation and is lawful. Yet, it was finally decided that the termination is unlawful and the plaintiff is entitled to compensation enshrined under the labor proclamation in total of Birr 114,000.00.
- Labor, Compensation – The case began when the plaintiff sued my client, the defendant before the Federal First Instance Court Labor Bench. Plaintiff claimed that his contract was terminated unlawfully and pleaded the court to award him compensation of more than 500,000.00 Birr. Defendant argued that plaintiff was not employed by it. Eventually, the court decided to hear witnesses and my client was able to prove that plaintiff was not hired by it at the beginning. The court decided in favor of my client and held that defendant is exonerated from any kind of liability.
- Property, Possessory Action –The case began when the plaintiff, who possessed a land of 600 m2, filed a suit at the Federal First Instance Court against the Sub City for possessory action. After the court heard both parties, it was decided in favor of my client and the court held that defendants violated plaintiff’s right and the plaintiff is entitled to use the property as he thinks fit.
- Family, Maintenance and Partition of common property – My client, the plaintiff, petitioned the court to divide a property- a house, 175 m2 wide, with the defendant and pay maintenance for their 4 children. The defendant claimed custody right and argued that the house is not a common property. The court held that all of the children must stay with their mother, the defendant shall pay maintenance every month and the house shall is a common property.
- Family, Partition of property – After the Federal First Instance Court granted divorce, plaintiff petitioned the court to partition the property. However, the defendant had already sold both houses without plaintiff’s consent or knowledge; and signed the sale contract without stating the actual amount. My client argued that the defendant must be held liable for selling the common property. The court decided in the plaintiff’s favor, but the defendant absconded for fear that he must pay a specified amount. Even after execution began, he was nowhere to be found. After a search which took a long time, he was apprehended by the police and was presented before the court. The execution bench ordered the defendant to pay ETB 700,000.00 immediately.
- Criminal, Customs Case – My client was charged with customs case and the prosecutor pleaded the court to punish her with 5 to 10 years imprisonment and Birr 50,000.00 to Birr 200,000.00 fine. At the end, we managed to get secure her freedom and decrease the fine to Birr 25,000.00.
- Criminal, presenting an affidavit to the court –The defendant was charged, at the Federal High Court, with presenting “a falsified affidavit” to a court of law. The public prosecutor argued that the defendant is guilty as charged and presented one witness as evidence; whereas, the defendant maintained her innocence claiming that she did not know about the content of the details of the affidavit. The court finally decided my client’s favor and held that she is free from all charges.