Unit 1 – General Introduction

1. Concept and Scope of Substantive and Procedural Administrative Law

 Substantive Administrative Law

o Defines what powers administrative agencies have.
o It is about the scope of discretion granted to agencies.
o Example: Proclamation No. 1263/2021 (Definition of Powers and Duties of Federal
Executive Organs) → sets out the substantive powers of ministries and agencies.
 Procedural Administrative Law
o Defines how those powers are exercised.
o It is about processes, fairness, and legality.
o Example: Federal Administrative Procedure Proclamation No. 1183/2020 → Articles 4–7
require agencies to give notice, allow participation, and provide reasoned decisions.

Scope:

 Administrative law applies wherever an administrative agency exists.

 It follows the agency concept: if an institution delivers administrative service or
regulation, both substantive and procedural law apply.

2. Concept and Power of Administrative Agency

 Concept:
o A government institution providing administrative service or regulation.
o Excludes:
 Council of Ministers, PM’s Office, President’s Office (no direct service).
 Defense, Prosecution, Police, Intelligence (special laws).
 Public enterprises (business entities).
o Includes: service providers within legislature/judiciary (e.g., registries, secretariats).
 Power:
o Agencies can establish law through delegated legislation.

1
 o Example: Proclamation No. 1183/2020, Article 19 → empowers agencies to issue
directives, but requires publication and consultation.

3. Administrative Law and Constitutional Principles

 Separation of Powers:
o Administrative decisions/actions/adjudication = executive discretion.
o Administrative rule-making = delegated legislative power.
o Evidence: FDRE Constitution, Article 77 → executive organs implement laws.
 Rule of Law:
o Substantive law → respect scope of power.
o Procedural law → respect required procedure.
o Evidence: Proclamation No. 1183/2020, Article 5 → agencies must act within
authority and follow procedure.
 Human Rights:
o Both substantive and procedural law must respect rights.
o Evidence: FDRE Constitution, Article 13–28 → rights to equality, fair hearing,
access to justice.
 Accountability:
o Vertical (to higher authority) and horizontal (to public/clients).
o Evidence: Ombudsman Establishment Proclamation No. 1142/2019 → ensures
accountability.
 Transparency:
o Agencies must disclose decisions.
o Evidence: Freedom of Mass Media and Access to Information Proclamation No.
590/2008 → guarantees access to government documents.
 Public Participation:
o Agencies must engage clients/public in decisions and rule-making.
o Evidence: Proclamation No. 1183/2020, Article 6 → requires consultation before
directives.

2
4. Administrative Law and Good Governance

 Good Governance Indicators:

o Defined differently by UN, IMF, World Bank, Ethiopia’s EIO Guidelines.
o Common themes: accountability, transparency, participation, efficiency, rule of
law.
 Link to Administrative Law:
o Administrative law is the legality check that operationalizes governance
principles.
o Example: Judicial review ensures agencies act lawfully (Proclamation No.
1183/2020, Article 22).

5. Global Development of Administrative Law

 19th Century Development:

o Emerged with rise of bureaucracy and liberal democratic norms.
o Focused on neutrality, expertise, safeguards, and later New Public Management
reforms.
 Procedural Principles:
o England → Natural Justice (right to be heard, rule against bias).
o USA → Due Process.
o Continental Europe → Substantive correctness.
o Convergence (1970s onward) → notice, access to documents, written response,
reasoned decision.
 Substantive Principles:
o Rule of Law → legality checks.
o Individual Rights → rights-based review.
o Policy Rationality → sound policy-making.
o Examples:
 Germany → proportionality, equality, legitimate expectation.
 USA → arbitrariness/capriciousness check.
 England → error of law/illegality.

3
  Judicial Review Systems:
o England → ordinary courts + tribunals.
o France → Council of State (dual system).
o Germany → specialized benches (hybrid).
o Ethiopia → Federal High Court review (Proclamation No. 1183/2020, Article 22).
 Public Participation:
o USA → notice-and-comment.
o Europe → consultation committees.
o Ethiopia → Article 6 of Proclamation No. 1183/2020 → requires consultation.
 Informal Oversight:
o Ombudsman, FOI laws.
o Ethiopia → Ombudsman Proclamation No. 1142/2019; FOI Proclamation No.
590/2008.
 Globalization:
o Common reforms: rule of law, transparency, accountability, participation.

6. Development of Administrative Law in Ethiopia

 Imperial Time (pre-1908): Fetha Nagast, religion, custom.

 Post-1908: Ministerial government, substantive laws, Negarit Gazetta (1942).
 1960s–70s: Tribunals, failed attempt at procedure law.
 Socialism (1974–91): Continued substantive law, tribunals.
 Transitional (1991–95): Same continuity.
 Post-1995: FDRE Constitution, Ombudsman (2000), FOI (2008), working group (2018),
Federal Administrative Procedure Proclamation (2020).
 Current:
o Substantive → Proclamation No. 1263/2021.
o Procedural → Proclamation No. 1183/2020.
o Tribunals, Ombudsman, FOI, CSOs Proclamation No. 1113/2019, Human Rights
Commission Proclamation No. 1224/2020.
o Regional laws paralleling federal framework.

4
Administrative Rule Making

1. Initiation and Timing of Rule Making

Relevant Article: Art. 4, Proclamation No. 1183/2020

Rule making can be initiated in three ways:

 When required by law → Parliament or higher legislation mandates an agency to issue

rules.
 Agency’s own discretion → Agencies may initiate rules to fill gaps or improve
administration.
 Client request → Stakeholders or citizens may petition agencies to regulate specific
issues.

👉 Evidence: Art. 4 explicitly recognize these three triggers. This ensures responsiveness to legal
mandates, administrative needs, and public demand.

2. Substantive Requirement for Rule Making

Relevant Article: Art. 7, Proclamation No. 1183/2020

Supporting Law: Proclamation No. 1263/2021 (Definition of Powers and Duties of
Executive Organs)

 Agencies must act within delegated power.

 They cannot legislate independently; rules must derive from authority granted by
Parliament or higher law.
 If an agency issues rules without delegation, the rule is ultra vires (invalid).

👉 Evidence: Art. 7 requires verification of delegated power before rule making. Proclamation
No. 1263/2021 defines which organs have which powers.

3. Procedural Requirements for Rule Making

5
Relevant Articles: Arts. 7–19, Proclamation No. 1183/2020

This is the most detailed part. Agencies must follow structured steps:

Step 1: Verify Delegated Power (Art. 7)

 Confirm that the agency has legal authority to issue the rule.
 Prevents ultra vires actions.

Step 2: Keep Agency Register/Records (Art. 8)

 Agencies must maintain an official register of rules.

 Ensures transparency and accountability.

Step 3: Draft Rule in Legal Format (Art. 9)

 Rules must be prepared in the legally required language and format.

 Prevents ambiguity and ensures consistency.

Step 4: Prepare Explanatory Statement (Art. 10)

 Agencies must justify the rule, explaining its purpose, legal basis, and expected impact.
 Promotes transparency and rational decision making.

Step 5: Conduct Public Consultation – “Notice and Comment” (Arts. 11–13)

 Notify the public to submit written comments.

 Invite other agencies and stakeholders to comment.
 Organize oral hearings where necessary.
 Incorporate feedback into the final rule.
👉 This operationalizes participation theory.

Step 6: Obtain Registrar’s Opinion (Art. 14)

 Ministry of Justice reviews the draft rule and explanatory statement before adoption.

6
  Provides legal oversight.

Step 7: Register Adopted Rule (Art. 15)

 Rule and explanatory statement must be registered with the Ministry of Justice.
 Ensures legality and official recognition.

Step 8: Publication of Rule (Arts. 16–19)

 Enter into agency register.

 Publish electronically on agency website.
 Provide printed copies upon request.
 Publish electronically on Ministry of Justice website.
👉 Prevents “secret law” and ensures accessibility.

4. Analytical Perspective

 Legality: Verification of delegated power ensures rules are lawful.

 Transparency: Explanatory statements and publication prevent hidden regulations.
 Participation: Notice and comment procedures embody democratic governance.
 Accountability: Registrar oversight and record keeping ensure agencies cannot act
arbitrarily.

📘 Unit 3 – Administrative Decision and Action )

1. Legal Foundations

Two proclamations form the backbone of administrative decision-making in Ethiopia:

 Administrative Procedure Proclamation No. 1183/2020

o Art. 2(1,3): Defines administrative decision and administrative action.
 Decision = determination by an agency affecting rights, duties, or
interests.
 Action = implementation of such decisions.

7
 o Arts. 20–47: Lay down the procedural safeguards (application, hearing,
transparency, complaint handling).
 Definition of Powers and Duties of the Executive Organs Proclamation No.
1263/2021
o Arts. 3–5: Define the scope of powers and duties of ministries, agencies, and
bureaus.
o Prevents ultra vires (acting beyond authority).

2. Initiation and Timing of Decision or Action

 Relevant Article: Art. 20, Proclamation 1183/2020

 Explanation:
o Decisions may be initiated when a client requests (application, petition).
o Or when an agency initiates action itself (inspection, enforcement).
 Practical Example: A villager applies for a water connection → bureau must respond
within a reasonable time.

3. Substantive Requirement

 Relevant Articles: Arts. 3–5, Proclamation 1263/2021

 Explanation:
o Agencies must act strictly within the powers granted by law.
o Ultra vires actions (beyond authority) are invalid.
 Practical Example: A municipal office cannot regulate telecommunications; only the
federal ministry has that mandate.

4. Procedural Requirements (Arts. 22–47, Proclamation 1183/2020)

These articles detail the 15 safeguards for lawful administrative action:

Requirement Relevant Expanded Explanation

Article
Receiving client application in Art. 22 Applications must be documented for

8
writing traceability.
Giving receipt for client Art. 23 Provides proof of submission to protect client
application rights.
Acting through authorized Art. 24 Only legally empowered officials may decide.
person only
Balancing public & private Art. 25 Decisions must weigh community needs vs.
interests individual rights.
Avoiding irrelevant Art. 26 Prevents bias; decisions must be based on
consideration relevant facts.
Professionalism Art. 27 Officials must act competently and ethically.
Hearing Art. 28 Clients have the right to be heard before
adverse decisions.
Good faith Art. 29 Agencies must act honestly, not with hidden
agendas.
Giving reason Art. 30 Written reasons ensure accountability and
allow appeals.
Avoiding conflict of interest Art. 31 Officials must recuse themselves if personally
interested.
Treating clients equally Art. 32 Non-discrimination principle; fairness across
all applicants.
Timeliness Art. 33 Decisions must be made without undue delay.
Predictability Art. 34 Agencies must act consistently, meeting
public expectations.
Transparency Arts. 35–36 Decisions must be written, recorded, and
handed to clients.
Handling complaint Arts. 37–47 Clients must have access to complaint and
appeal mechanisms.

5. Practical Application Example

Hetosa District Water Bureau Case

9
  Initiation: Villagers request a new pipeline (Art. 20).
 Substantive: Bureau acts only within water-related mandate (1263/2021, Arts. 3–5).
 Procedural:
o Application received in writing (Art. 22).
o Receipt given (Art. 23).
o Decision by authorized engineer (Art. 24).
o Public vs. private interests balanced (Art. 25).
o Written reasons provided (Art. 30).
o Complaint mechanism available (Arts. 37–47).

📘 Unit 4 – Judicial Review and Other Controls

1. Internal Complaint Handling

Law: Administrative Procedure Proclamation No. 1183/2020, Arts. 43–47

 Art. 43: Grants citizens the right to lodge complaints against administrative decisions,
actions, or adjudications.
 Art. 44: Sets procedures (time limits, format, submission requirements).
 Art. 45: Obliges the administrative organ to investigate complaints fairly.
 Art. 46: Requires written reasoning in the decision given to the complainant.
 Art. 47: Allows appeal to a higher administrative authority if dissatisfied.

Expanded Note:
This mechanism is the first line of accountability. It ensures that citizens can challenge unfair
or unlawful decisions inside the agency itself before resorting to courts. For administrators, it
means you must:

 Keep clear records of decisions.

 Respond promptly and in writing.
 Correct mistakes internally to avoid escalation.

2. Judicial Review

10
Law: Administrative Procedure Proclamation No. 1183/2020, Arts. 48–57

 Art. 48: Defines grounds for judicial review (illegality, irrationality, procedural
impropriety).
 Arts. 49–52: Outline procedures for filing judicial review applications.
 Arts. 53–55: Grant courts powers to annul, amend, or order compliance.
 Arts. 56–57: Ensure enforcement of court decisions.

Expanded Note:
Judicial review is the core safeguard against abuse of administrative power. Courts check
whether administrators acted within their legal authority. For administrators, this means:

 Always act within the scope of your legal mandate.

 Ensure decisions follow proper procedures.
 Be prepared to justify decisions in court if challenged.

3. Review by Administrative Tribunals

Examples & Laws:

 Tax Appeal Commission → Federal Tax Administration Proclamation No. 983/2016,

Arts. 56, 86–94
 Investment Commission & Board → Investment Proclamation No. 1180/2020, Arts.
25–27
 Civil Servants Administrative Tribunal → Federal Civil Servants Proclamation No.
1064/2017, Arts. 79–82

Expanded Note:
Tribunals are specialized bodies that handle disputes in specific sectors.

 Tax disputes → Tax Appeal Commission.

 Investment licensing disputes → Investment Board.
 Civil servant discipline → Civil Servants Tribunal.

11
For administrators, this means:

 Prepare evidence and documentation for tribunal hearings.

 Respect tribunal rulings as binding.
 Recognize that tribunals provide expert, sector-specific justice.

4. Executive Control

Law: Definition of Powers and Duties of Executive Organs Proclamation No. 1263/2021, Arts.
17, 18, 19(12), 77, 79–98

 Arts. 17–18: Ministries must supervise subordinate organs.

 Art. 19(12): Agencies must report performance to higher organs.
 Arts. 77, 79–98: Provide mechanisms for oversight, discipline, and accountability.

Expanded Note:
Executive control ensures vertical accountability within ministries. Higher organs monitor and
discipline lower ones. For administrators:

 Submit regular performance reports.

 Align bureau actions with ministry directives.
 Accept supervision as part of hierarchical governance.

5. Parliamentary Control

Law: FDRE Constitution (Proclamation No. 1/1995), Art. 55(17)

 Art. 55(17): Parliament has the power to investigate and hear reports from executive
organs.

Expanded Note:
Parliamentary control ensures political accountability. Administrators must:

 Provide transparent reports to Parliament.

 Answer questions honestly during hearings.

12
  Implement corrective measures recommended by Parliament.

6. Control by Ombudsman

Law: Ethiopian Institution of the Ombudsman Establishment Amendment Proclamation No.

1142/2019, Art. 7

 Functions:
o Hearing individual complaints.
o Providing redress.
o Checking maladministration.
o Conducting systemic investigations.
o Promoting good governance.

Expanded Note:
The Ombudsman is an independent watchdog. Administrators must:

 Cooperate with investigations.

 Provide requested records.
 Implement recommendations to improve governance.

7. Control by Human Rights Commission

Law: Ethiopian Human Rights Commission Establishment Proclamation No. 210/2000,

Preamble para. 3, Arts. 6(1,2,4)

 Functions:
o Ensure government respects human rights.
o Provide redress for violations.
o Check maladministration.
o Promote good governance.

13
Expanded Note:
Administrators must ensure policies and actions respect human rights standards. If violations
occur, the Commission can investigate and recommend remedies.

8. Control by Mass Media

Law: Freedom of the Mass Media and Access to Information Proclamation No. 590/2008, Part
II & Part III

 Part II: Governs the role of mass media in promoting transparency.

 Part III: Guarantees citizens’ right of access to information.

Expanded Note:
Media acts as a public watchdog. Administrators must:

 Provide accurate information when requested.

 Respond transparently to allegations.
 Embrace openness as part of accountability.

9. Control by Civil Society

Law: Organizations of Civil Societies Proclamation No. 1113/2019, Preamble para. 3, Arts.
6(6,8,9,10)

 Functions:
o Promote transparency.
o Ensure accountability.
o Encourage citizen participation.

Expanded Note:
Civil society organizations bridge the gap between citizens and government. Administrators
must:

 Allow civil society input in planning and policy.

14
  Share information openly.
 Recognize civil society as a partner in governance.

✍️Rewritten Question 1: Enforcement of Administrative Procedure Law

Original:

As you observed during the course assignment, Ethiopia’s administrative institutions are not
fully respecting the administrative procedure law (Proclamation No. 1183/2020). What measure
should be taken to strengthen enforcement of the law? Indicate below the major measure you
suggest with your reason.

Rewritten:
Despite the enactment of Proclamation No. 1183/2020, many Ethiopian administrative
institutions continue to disregard its procedural safeguards.
What major measure should be taken to strengthen enforcement of this law?
Support your proposed solution with legal reasoning and practical justification.

🧠 Answer on Behalf of a Fourth-Year Law Student

As a fourth-year law student specializing in administrative law, I believe the persistent non-
compliance with Proclamation No. 1183/2020 reflects a deeper institutional and cultural
challenge. The law itself is comprehensive, but its enforcement mechanisms are weak. To
strengthen compliance, I propose the introduction of a mandatory administrative compliance
audit system, coordinated by the Ministry of Justice.

This measure would require all administrative agencies to undergo annual audits assessing:

 Whether decisions are issued in writing with reasons (Art. 10),

 Whether public consultation is conducted for rule making (Arts. 11–13),
 Whether rules are registered and published (Arts. 15–19),
 Whether officials respect the right to be heard (Art. 12).

15
Agencies failing to meet benchmarks would be required to submit corrective action plans. Repeat
violations could trigger administrative sanctions, such as budgetary penalties or public reporting
of non-compliance.

This approach is preferable to criminal sanctions, which may create fear and resistance. Instead,
audits promote a culture of legality and transparency. They also align with the principle of
proportionality under Article 14 — enforcement should be firm but constructive.

In conclusion, enforcement of administrative procedure law requires more than legal text — it
demands institutional accountability, capacity building, and oversight. A compliance audit
system offers a realistic and effective path forward.

✍️Rewritten Question 2: Judicial Review of Licensing Refusal

Original:

Mrs. A wants to get trade license by the Addis Ababa Trade Bureau. She submitted her
application for license to the bureau. The bureau refused to give her the license because she did
not meet one of the requirements for licensing. Mrs. A believes that she meets the requirement
the trade bureau was asking. There is dispute between her and the bureau regarding the
fulfillment of the particular licensing requirement. Mrs. A wants to know if she can take the
refusal decision of the bureau under the disputed ground to the Federal High Court for judicial
review under the administrative procedure law (See Article 50(2), with the cross-referred part, of
Proclamation No. 1183/2020 – extract attached). Can she do so under the disputed ground?
Answer below with your reason: (25%)

Rewritten:
Mrs. A’s application for a trade license was rejected by the Addis Ababa Trade Bureau on the
grounds that she failed to meet a licensing requirement. She disputes this, claiming she does
meet the requirement.
Can Mrs. A challenge the Bureau’s refusal before the Federal High Court through judicial
review under Article 50(2) of Proclamation No. 1183/2020?
Support your answer with legal reasoning.

16
🧠 Answer on Behalf of a Fourth-Year Law Student

Yes, Mrs. A can potentially challenge the Bureau’s refusal through judicial review, but the
success of her claim depends on how the dispute is framed under Article 50(2) of Proclamation
No. 1183/2020.

⚖️Legal Basis

 Article 50(2) allows judicial review of administrative decisions where the applicant
alleges that the decision:
o Violates the law,
o Exceeds delegated power,
o Or is procedurally flawed.
 Judicial review is primarily concerned with questions of law, not mere factual
disagreements.

🔍 Application to Mrs. A’s Case

1. Final Administrative Decision

The Bureau’s refusal is a final decision with legal effect — it denies her the right to
operate a business. This satisfies the threshold for reviewability.
2. Nature of the Dispute
o If the requirement is clearly defined in law or regulation (e.g., “must have a
valid tax clearance”), and the Bureau misinterpreted or misapplied it, then the
dispute is a legal question suitable for judicial review.
o If the requirement involves subjective discretion (e.g., “adequate premises” or
“sufficient experience”), courts may defer to the Bureau’s judgment unless there
is evidence of abuse, arbitrariness, or lack of reasoning.
3. Procedural Safeguards
If the Bureau failed to provide written reasons or denied Mrs. A the right to be heard, she
can argue procedural violation under Articles 10–12 of the proclamation, strengthening
her case.

17
🧩 Conclusion

Mrs. A can take the refusal to the Federal High Court for judicial review, but her claim must be
framed as a legal misapplication or procedural violation, not simply a factual disagreement. If
she demonstrates that the Bureau misinterpreted the licensing requirement or failed to follow due
process, the court has grounds to intervene. If the dispute is purely discretionary, the court may
uphold the Bureau’s decision.

✍️Rewritten Question 3.1

Original:

The aim of administrative law can be described as balancing between the pursuit of
administrative efficiency and rule of law. How does it do this?

Rewritten:
Administrative law is often described as a mechanism for balancing the need for efficient
governance with the imperative to uphold the rule of law.
How does administrative law achieve this balance in theory and practice?

🧠 (on behalf of a fourth-year law student)

Administrative law achieves this balance by embedding procedural safeguards into the exercise
of administrative discretion. Efficiency requires agencies to act quickly and flexibly, but
unchecked discretion risks arbitrariness. The law therefore imposes requirements such as notice,
hearing, reasoned decisions, and judicial review.

For example, Proclamation No. 1183/2020 allows agencies to initiate rule making at their
discretion, but only after verifying delegated power and conducting public consultation. This
ensures efficiency is exercised within legality. Courts also play a role by reviewing
administrative decisions for legality, not substituting their judgment for that of agencies, thereby
respecting efficiency while upholding the rule of law.

18
Thus, administrative law does not sacrifice one value for the other — it orchestrates both,
ensuring governance is responsive yet accountable.

✍️Rewritten Question 3.2

Original:

The Ethiopian Federal administrative procedure proclamation recognizes inherent and delegated
powers of discretion and imposes substantive and procedural principles with control mechanisms
including judicial review regarding administrative decisions and directives of administrative
agencies. It assumes that the administrative agencies in Ethiopia are law abiding, hence that they
will adjust their behavior to the new requirements, and that the people will rely much on the
judicial review mechanism as an important check. Empirical studies have shown, and you have
already discovered through your assignment, that the administrative agencies are not working
according to the proclamation and the public is not strongly using the judicial review mechanism
although two years have already lapsed since enactment of the proclamation. Some persons
propose amendment of the proclamation to add criminal sanctions to the officials of the agencies
who should be directed to the proclamation to best execute its requirements. Do you think that
this is an effective amendment of the proclamation?

Rewritten:
Given that Ethiopian administrative agencies have failed to comply with Proclamation No.
1183/2020 and the public has not strongly relied on judicial review, some propose amending the
proclamation to introduce criminal sanctions against non-compliant officials.
Would such an amendment be effective? Justify your answer.

🧠 (on behalf of a fourth-year law student)

Criminal sanctions may appear to strengthen enforcement, but they are not the most effective
solution. The problem lies less in deliberate defiance and more in institutional incapacity, weak
oversight, and lack of legal culture. Criminalizing officials risks creating fear, defensive
bureaucracy, and politicization of enforcement.

19
A better approach is administrative accountability: compliance audits, mandatory training, and
public reporting of agency performance. These measures build a culture of legality without
criminalizing public service. Targeted sanctions may be justified in cases of deliberate abuse, but
broad criminalization undermines efficiency and morale.

Therefore, the amendment would be symbolic rather than effective. Real reform requires
capacity building, oversight, and public empowerment, not punishment alone.

✍️Rewritten Question 3.3

Original:

The Ethiopian Federal administrative procedure proclamation recognizes judicial review of

administrative decisions and directives by the Federal High Court. It allows appeal to the Federal
Supreme Court from the judicial review decision of the High Court regarding administrative
directives but bars same regarding administrative decisions. It is silent on cassation. The
proposal by the draft proclamation was to bar appeal regarding both administrative decisions and
directives and allow cassation on both. Which of the two approaches, do you think, is best?

Rewritten:
Under Proclamation No. 1183/2020, appeals to the Federal Supreme Court are permitted for
judicial review of directives but barred for decisions, while cassation is not addressed. A draft
proposal suggests barring all appeals but allowing cassation for both.
Which approach better serves administrative justice, and why?

🧠 (on behalf of a fourth-year law student)

The draft proposal — barring appeals but allowing cassation — is superior. Appeals reopen
factual disputes and risk endless litigation, undermining administrative finality. Cassation, by
contrast, focuses on errors of law, which aligns with the nature of administrative review.

20
Allowing cassation ensures legal standards are upheld without overwhelming courts with factual
re-litigation. It also promotes efficiency by giving agencies certainty in their decisions. Critics
argue cassation is too narrow, but administrative law already provides safeguards such as
explanatory statements, consultation, and judicial review at the High Court. Cassation adds a
final layer of legal scrutiny without paralyzing governance.

Thus, the draft approach better balances legal clarity, institutional efficiency, and judicial
coherence.

✍️Rewritten Question 4: Case Disposition

Original:

“Lideta Pharmacy” has been duly licensed to engage and in fact has been engaged in marketing
drugs and other pharmaceutical products in Addis Ababa. “The Addis Ababa Food and Drug
Authority” has been authorized to license and monitor the level of regulatory compliance of food
and drug producing and distributing enterprises in Addis Ababa.
One bright morning, health inspectors of the authority paid a visit to the Pharmacy to see to it
whether it is operating in accordance with the heath facilities regulations. To their surprise, they
identified that drugs whose shelf life have expired were still being marketed in the pharmacy
under inspection.
The health inspectors summoned the owner of the pharmacy to appear at the authority’s office
the next day. As soon as he arrived at the office, he was informed (by the person at the gate that)
he must suspend business operation effective from that date until further notice is handed down.
As the pharmacy has been his and his family’s sole means of livelihood, the pharmacy owner has
been offended by the decision. Luckily enough, however, he met a Law IV student who took the
course on “Administrative Law” last year. The pharmacy owner narrated the above facts to the
student; and asked him what remedy he may have under the law. Without going into the details,
the student concluded that there were multiple fallacies the authority committed; and hence its
measures could be challenged.

21
The Pharmacy owner was not satisfied with the generally formulated answer of the Law IV
student. As an expert in administrative procedure law, please identify what fallacies, if any, has
the Authority committed; and advise the pharmacy owner as to the procedures it should adhere to
towards challenging the administrative action.

Answer on Behalf of a Fourth-Year Law Student

The Addis Ababa Food and Drug Authority committed several procedural fallacies in its
handling of Lideta Pharmacy’s case. While expired drugs are a legitimate regulatory concern, the
manner in which the Authority acted violated the Federal Administrative Procedure
Proclamation No. 1183/2020.

⚖️Fallacies Committed

1. No Written Decision
The suspension was communicated verbally by a gatekeeper. Under Article 10,
administrative decisions must be issued in writing, include reasons, and be signed by an
authorized official.
2. Denial of the Right to Be Heard
The owner was summoned but not given a chance to present his defense before the
sanction. Article 12 guarantees the right to be heard prior to adverse administrative
action.
3. Failure to Provide Reasons
The Authority did not explain why suspension was necessary or proportionate. Article 14
requires that administrative measures be reasonable and justified.
4. Improper Delegation of Authority
A gatekeeper is not legally empowered to issue binding administrative decisions. This
violates the principle of acting within delegated power under Article 7.
5. Bypassing Procedural Safeguards
The Authority failed to follow the steps of documentation, registration, and publication
required under Articles 15–19.

🛠️Remedies Available to the Pharmacy Owner

22
 1. Judicial Review
The owner can petition the Federal High Court under Article 50(2), arguing that the
suspension was unlawful due to lack of written decision, denial of hearing, and absence
of proportionality.
2. Request Interim Relief
Given that the suspension affects livelihood, the owner may seek interim relief to
continue operations until the case is resolved.
3. Demand Written Decision
The owner should formally request a written, reasoned decision from the Authority,
which can serve as evidence in court.

🧩 Conclusion

The Authority’s concern about expired drugs was valid, but its response was procedurally
flawed. Administrative law requires that even urgent regulatory actions respect due process,
legality, and proportionality. The pharmacy owner has strong grounds to challenge the
suspension through judicial review and assert his procedural rights.

✍️Rewritten Question 5: Participation Theory in Rule Making

Original:

In not more than twenty lines, discuss how “participation theory” has been regulated in
administrative rule making procedure as per the stipulations of the Federal Administrative
Procedure Proclamation.

Rewritten:
Explain how the concept of “participation theory” is regulated within Ethiopia’s administrative
rule-making procedures under the Federal Administrative Procedure Proclamation No.
1183/2020. Your answer should highlight the legal provisions and their implications for
democratic governance.

23
🧠 Answer on Behalf of a Fourth-Year Law Student

Participation theory holds that legitimacy in administrative rule making comes not only from
legality but also from public involvement. The Federal Administrative Procedure Proclamation
No. 1183/2020 institutionalizes this theory by embedding notice and comment procedures into
rule making.

⚖️Key Provisions

1. Public Notification (Art. 11)

Agencies must notify the public of proposed rules, ensuring transparency and
accessibility.
2. Written Comments (Art. 12)
Citizens and stakeholders are invited to submit written opinions, allowing diverse
perspectives to shape regulation.
3. Oral Hearings (Art. 13)
Agencies may organize hearings, giving affected groups a direct voice in the process.
4. Explanatory Statement (Art. 10)
Agencies must justify their rules, showing how public input was considered. This
prevents token consultation and enforces accountability.
5. Publication (Arts. 15–19)
Rules must be published through multiple channels, ensuring that participation is not
symbolic but practical.

🧩 Analytical Perspective

By requiring consultation and explanation, the proclamation transforms rule making from a
bureaucratic act into a collaborative process. This reflects participation theory’s core: rules
gain legitimacy when those affected are part of their creation.

Critics argue participation slows efficiency, but democratic governance values inclusion over
speed. Moreover, participation improves regulatory quality by exposing agencies to real-world
concerns.

24
✅ Conclusion

The proclamation regulates participation theory by making it a legal obligation rather than a
discretionary courtesy. It ensures that administrative rule making in Ethiopia is not only lawful
but also democratic, transparent, and responsive.

25