Parties’ freedom to agree on any matter extends to agree to resolve their dispute either judicial litigation or arbitration. Arbitration is a system of dispute settlement where by disputants takes their case before arbitrators of their own choice. The civil code defines it “as a contract whereby the parties to a dispute entrust its solution to a third party, the arbitrator, who undertakes to settle the dispute in accordance with the principles of law.” (Art 3325(1)).

It will be unwise to begin the essay without introducing the reader about injunction in Ethiopian Civil Procedure Code (CPC). Injunction is one form of provisional measure ordered by a competent judicial organ to the requesting party. Robert Allen Sedler, a famous author on Ethiopian civil procedure, says that it may be necessary to make provision for the protection of the parties and the maintenance of the property in dispute pending the final determination of the case. The court is vested with exclusive power to issue provisional measures until the final judgement.

Arbitration is crafted in a way that can satisfy parties’ interests from the beginning until the final award is rendered. In each step, decisions rendered by arbitrators may potentially affect the interest of adversarial parties. Anyone closely following the evolution of international commercial arbitration will not be surprised to see interim protection measures become a center of debate. From the publication of scholarly articles until the amendment of the UNICTRAL model law, the international arbitration community has made various efforts to adopt uniform application and enforcement of interim protection measures in international commercial arbitration.

What would you answer if you were confronted with a question: is appeal a fundamental right? Would you say yes, no, or neither? I think the argument leans towards yes, does not it? Art 20(6) of the constitution affirms the right of any person to “appeal to the competent court against an order”; yet, I do not aim to discuss appeal in courts, but its general perception in arbitration.

I say 1958 was a year the international arbitration world took a remarkable move. The UN and other parties interested in international arbitration embarked an international convention to recognize and enforce foreign arbitral awards. The convention was signed in New York, The New York Convention to Recognize and Enforce Foreign Arbitral Awards (NYC), and it became the most popular convention in the whole wide world. The major trading nations, those that appear to be antagonistic have signed it without any kind of reservation. Thus far, round about 150 countries have signed and ratified it. Even, it is hailed as the “successful convention drafted by the UN.”

In 1996 the case between Arab Republic of Egypt v Chromalloy Aero services brought a new debate to the international arbitration world. Chromalloy Aero services (“Chromalloy”), an American corporation, entered into a military procurement contract with the Air Force of the Arab Republic of Egypt (“Egypt”) to provide parts, maintenance, and repair for helicopters.

An interesting article, published on Jimma University Journal of Law, entitled “the immediate appealability of a court order against arbitration: it should be allowed and even made compulsory”, argues that an immediate appeal against a court order which is against arbitration must be allowed; article 320/3/ of the Civil Procedure Code should be amended to take the special nature of arbitration into account.

The case between Salini Costruttori S.p.A v. AAWSA, ICC Case 10623, is very interesting. What makes the case appealing is the Ethiopian Supreme Court’s interference in the proceeding and the consequent explanation given by the arbitrator tribunal. By the application of AAWSA, the Ethiopian party, a respondent in the case, the Ethiopian court was convinced that the international arbitral panel was partial; hence, the court ordered the tribunal to cease the proceeding. 

I was reading an article on Oromia Law Journal about the degree of court’s control on arbitration under the Ethiopian Arbitration Law. The writer divided the control into three parts: control via appeal (Art 351 of Civ.Pro.Code), set aside (Art 356 of Civ.Pro.Code) and homologation (Art 319(2) of Civ.Pro.Code). He said that courts unfairly arbitration via the avenue of appeal; set aside seems narrow and homologation isn’t included in the Amharic Version of the code, which is senseless; and must be redefined to set the standards of homologation under the Ethiopian Arbitration Law.

ግልግል በፍትሐብሔር ሕጋችን እውቅና ከተሰጣቸው የሙግት መፍቻ ዘዴዎች አንዱ እንደሆነ ይታወቃል፡፡ ተከራካሪዎችም ጉዳያቸውን ወደ ግልግል የሚወስዱት በመካከላቸው በሕግ ፊት የሚጸና የግልግል ስምምነት እስካለ ድረስ ብቻ ነው፡፡ በዚህ ጽሑፍ በግልግል ሂደት መብታቸው የሚነካ ሦስተኛ ወገኖች ምን ዓይነት መፍትሔ ሊያገኙ ይችላሉ የሚለውን ለመመልከት ይሞክራሉ፡፡ በዚህ ጽሑፍ ላይ የቀረበው በየካቲት ወር 2009 ዓ.ም ለገበያ ከበቃው ‹‹የግልግል ዳኝነት በኢትዮጵያ›› ከተሰኘው መጽሐፍ ላይ የተቀነጨበ ነው፡፡