Challenges Concerning the Application of Prescriptions to Rural Land Disputes Under Ethiopia’s Current Rural Land Law
| dc.contributor.advisor | Muradu Abdo (PhD) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Markon Abate | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2025-08-08T13:56:31Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2025-08-08T13:56:31Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2024-11-01 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Until recently when the FDRE Rural Land Use Proclamation No. 456/2005 was repealed by Proclamation No.1324/24, the application of the rule of prescription lacked explicit legal guidance which resulted in polarized arguments amongst legal experts. Many argued against its relevance based on the FDRE Constitution, which jointly grants land ownership to the people and the state. However, others contended that prescription is a general rule applicable to all rights, necessitating specific provisions to exclude its application in rural land cases. This study analyzed Ethiopia’s current rural land legal framework and the Federal Supreme Court Cassation Division’s decisions to assess the application of prescription to rural land disputes and pinpoint the associated legal and practical challenges. The study adopted doctrinal research design, supplemented by case reviews and interviews with experts. The study has found that the new FDRE Rural Land Proclamation boldly addresses some of the concerns regarding prescription that were previously raised It establishes a 15-year prescription period for land reclamation actions between private parties. It prohibits raising this defence if the case involves the reclamation of an illegally obtained state or communal landholding. It acknowledges the application of other prescription rules from relevant laws to claims that do not involve the reclamation of landholding rights. The study has also determined that certain ambiguities persist in the new Proclamation’s stance on prescription. Namely, the Proclamation provides no criterion for characterizing an action as a reclamation or other claim. It is also not clear whether prescription cannot be set up against the state and a community in relation to rural land disputes at all. In addition, the Proclamation lacks a definitive answer to the question of whether a person invoking prescription has to prove the lawfulness of the means used to hold the land in dispute even when the counterparty is a private individual. Furthermore, most importantly, the Proclamation’s provisions also appear to open new avenues for rural land access through prescription, raising questions about legality. Finally, the Proclamation does not provide for or specifically borrow the application of counting and interruption of the period of limitation it sets in Art. 64(2). Thus, recognizing the far-reaching consequence of prescription rules on individuals’ land rights, the study recommends the adoption of clear and comprehensive rules and guidelines for the application of prescription to rural land disputes | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://etd.aau.edu.et/handle/123456789/6266 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | |
| dc.publisher | Addis Ababa University | |
| dc.subject | landholding right | |
| dc.subject | prescription | |
| dc.subject | extinctive prescription | |
| dc.subject | acquisitive prescription | |
| dc.subject | land reclamation action | |
| dc.subject | methods of obtaining rural landholding right | |
| dc.title | Challenges Concerning the Application of Prescriptions to Rural Land Disputes Under Ethiopia’s Current Rural Land Law | |
| dc.type | Thesis |