Date: November 29, 2015 E.C.

Legal Rule (Interpretation of Law):

1. Priority of Secured Creditors: A bank that holds a valid security interest (mortgage or pledge) on a property has priority over other creditors, including judgment creditors. This means that if the debtor defaults, the bank has the right to seize and sell the secured property to satisfy the debt before any other claims can be paid from the proceeds of the sale.
2. Effect of Subsequent Attachment: An attachment or seizure of property by a judgment creditor (in this case, the Federal Prosecutor's Office for asset recovery due to a criminal investigation) does not defeat the pre-existing security interest of a bank. The bank's right to the secured property remains superior.
3. Requirements for Valid Security Interest: For a security interest to be valid and enforceable, it must be properly created and registered according to the law. This usually involves a written agreement (security agreement or mortgage) and registration with the appropriate government agency.
4. Verification of Security Interest: Before a court can deny a bank's request to lift an attachment on secured property, it must properly verify whether the bank's security interest was established prior to the attachment and is valid. Simply stating that the criminal investigation is ongoing is not sufficient reason to deny the bank's right to realize its security.
5. Reversal and Remand for Verification: If the lower courts fail to properly verify the bank's security interest and wrongly deny the bank's request to lift the attachment, the higher court will reverse the decision and remand the case back to the lower court. The lower court must then conduct the necessary verification and make a decision based on the established facts and the law regarding priority of secured creditors.
6. Applicable Laws: The decision mentions Proclamation 97/90, 98/90, and 216/92, which relate to foreclosure procedures for banks in Ethiopia. It also references the Revised Anti-Corruption Special Procedure and Evidence Proclamation No. 882/2007 and related articles, which govern asset forfeiture in corruption cases. The interplay between these laws determines the priority of claims. Proclamation 434/1997 is also referenced, which is the previous Anti-Corruption law. It is important to note that the case was decided based on the new proclamation 882/2007.