Dated October 5, 2002 (E.C.)

Facts:

The Appellant (Plaintiff) claimed she sent 20,000 Birr to the Respondent via bank transfer and an additional 10,000 Birr in cash through her family to purchase clothing for her boutique in Addis Ababa. The Respondent allegedly received the money but failed to deliver the clothes or return the funds.

The Respondent, while acknowledging receipt of the bank transfer, denied receiving the 10,000 Birr and argued that amounts over 500 Birr cannot be proven by witness testimony.

Lower Court Decisions:

• Central Zone High Court: Ruled in favor of the Appellant, ordering the Respondent to pay the full 30,000 Birr with interest and costs.
• Regional Supreme Court: Upheld the High Court's decision.
• Regional Cassation Court: Reversed the lower courts' decisions, citing laws related to negotiable instruments and deposits, stating that the case lacked proper evidence for amounts exceeding 500 Birr.

Appellant's Arguments (in Supreme Court):

The Appellant argued that the Regional Cassation Court's decision was incorrect because it applied inapplicable laws (negotiable instruments and deposits) to the case. They argued that the decision to overturn the lower courts' rulings was a fundamental legal error.

Respondent's Arguments (in Supreme Court):

The Respondent reiterated their position, denying receipt of the 10,000 Birr cash payment and referencing the evidentiary rules for amounts over 500 Birr.

Supreme Court Decision:

The Supreme Court overturned the Regional Cassation Court's decision and reinstated the rulings of the lower courts (High Court and Regional Supreme Court). They reasoned:

1. Bank Transfer: The Respondent admitted to receiving the 20,000 Birr via bank transfer, which was considered proven.
2. Cash Payment: Regarding the 10,000 Birr, the Court noted that the Appellant provided two witnesses who testified to the cash payment being made.
3. Applicable Law: The Supreme Court determined that the Regional Cassation Court erred in applying laws related to negotiable instruments and deposits. The transaction in question was a simple agreement for the purchase of goods, not a negotiable instrument or a deposit.
4. Evidence for Contracts: The Court emphasized that contracts, including agreements for the purchase of goods, can be proven by various forms of evidence, including witness testimony. There is no legal restriction preventing proof of such agreements above 500 Birr through witnesses unless the agreement falls under specific categories like loan agreements.
5. No Deposit: The Court clarified that the transaction was not a deposit (adera) as the money was not given for safekeeping but for the specific purpose of purchasing goods. Therefore, the evidentiary rules for deposits did not apply.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled that the Respondent must pay the Appellant the full 30,000 Birr, along with legal interest from the date the lawsuit was filed. The Respondent was also ordered to pay 1,500 Birr in costs for the Supreme Court proceedings.