The Homologation of Domestic Arbitral Awards in Ethiopia

The Ethiopian Arbitration Law consists of only a single provison, Art.319 (2), on the enforcement of domestic awards. This provision states that an award is to be enforced like a judgment but only after its homologation. The law, however, does not address in clear terms the fundamental questions that arise regarding homologation of awards such as: what is homologation of awards? When should the court refuse homologation? What procedure should be applied for the homologation of awards? What should the application for homologation look like and what documents should accompany it? The lack of clarity on these questions engenders confusion among lawyers and courts on the enforcement of domestic awards. In this work, with the purpose to give answers to the questions and ultimately clarify the law on the enforcement of domestic awards, it is argued that homologation of awards should be understood to mean confirmation by courts of the validity and thus enforceability of awards. Regarding the second question it is held that the grounds of refusal of homologation should be limited to matters listed under Art.356, Civ.Proc.C plus violations of public policy. As to the procedure of, and the form and contents of the application for homologation, it is argued that what is in store in accelerated procedure (Art 300, Civ.Proc.C and the following.) should be applied. The arguments are mainly based on the analysis of various rules of the Civ.Proc.C. The laws of foreign jurisdiction (similar to ours) and international instruments are also referred to get a perspective.