Date: July 2, 2019 (Sene 25, 2011 E.C.)
Summary of the Case:
The dispute began in the Federal First Instance Court, where the Respondents (Plaintiffs) sued the Applicant (Defendant) for compensation and various payments related to unlawful termination under labor law. The Applicant filed a statement of defense asserting the termination was lawful. However, the Applicant failed to appear at the hearing, leading the trial court to order ex-parte proceedings under Article 70(a) of the Civil Procedure Code. At the subsequent hearing, the Applicant appeared and requested permission to cross-examine witnesses and present defense witnesses but failed to apply to set aside the ex-parte order by showing sufficient cause under Article 72. The trial court rejected the Applicant’s argument that “the effect of ex-parte proceedings ends once the plaintiff’s evidence is heard.” The High Court dismissed the appeal, leading to this cassation petition.
Legal Interpretation:
1. An ex-parte order issued under Article 70(a) against a defendant who fails to appear results in the loss of the right to raise legal and factual arguments, as well as the right to cross-examination.
2. To regain the right to defend, a defendant must first apply to the court under Article 72, explain the “sufficient cause” that prevented their appearance, and have the ex-parte order set aside.
3. Attempting to cross-examine witnesses or present a defense without first setting aside the ex-parte order is a violation of procedural law.
Reasoning:
Although the Applicant had filed a written defense, the ex-parte order was legally issued due to his absence on the hearing date.
The Bench confirmed that the Applicant failed to file an application under Article 72 to set aside the order.
The Applicant’s argument that he should be allowed to cross-examine witnesses once the ex-parte “hearing phase” concluded lacks legal basis and contradicts the spirit of the Civil Procedure Code. A defendant cannot participate as an active litigant unless the ex-parte order is formally set aside for sufficient cause.
Ruling:
1. The decisions of the Federal First Instance Court and the Federal High Court are affirmed as they contain no fundamental error of law.