Mulugeta Guadie Mengiste & Anor v Endowment Fund for the Rehabilitation of Tigray & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 1326 (12 September 2017)

Mulugeta Guadie Mengiste & Anor v Endowment Fund for the Rehabilitation of Tigray & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 1326 (12 September 2017)

There was no cogent evidence of a real risk of unfairness in the Ethiopian courts' determination of the review application. The Ethiopian courts' application of time limits and treatment of alleged bias were within the bounds of their law and procedure. The English court is not an appellate forum for Ethiopian decisions, and the appellants' claims are unsustainable in England. The costs order stands.

Citation
[2017] EWCA Civ 1326
Parties
Appellants: Mulugeta Guadie Mengiste & Anr; Respondents: Endowment Fund for the Rehabilitation of Tigray & Ors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Refusal to Lift Stay and Dismissal of Action
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Forum Non Conveniens, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Fraud and Foreign Judgments, Judicial Impartiality, Costs Orders
Private International Law Civil Procedure Forum Non Conveniens Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Fraud and Foreign Judgments Judicial Impartiality Costs Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mulugeta Guadie Mengiste & Anr

Appellants

Endowment Fund for the Rehabilitation of Tigray & Ors

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Refusal to Lift Stay and Dismissal of Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court should lift a stay on proceedings concerning a foreign judgment alleged to have been obtained by fraud
  2. 2 Whether the appellants received a fair trial in the Ethiopian courts
  3. 3 Whether the time limits under Ethiopian law for review applications were unfair or improperly applied

Ratio Decidendi

There was no cogent evidence of a real risk of unfairness in the Ethiopian courts' determination of the review application. The Ethiopian courts' application of time limits and treatment of alleged bias were within the bounds of their law and procedure. The English court is not an appellate forum for Ethiopian decisions, and the appellants' claims are unsustainable in England. The costs order stands.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Stay not lifted
  • Action dismissed in its entirety