The Barred Role of Regular Courts in the Adjudication of Cases of Demolition of Informal Houses in Shaggar City

Abstract

In the newly established Shaggar City, rapid peri-urban restructuring has led to
large-scale demolitions of residential structures. The paper examines the role of
regular courts in adjudicating cases arising out of the demolition of informal
houses_ the legal challenges surrounding judicial oversight of these executive
actions. The primary objective is to investigate the "justice gap" created when
administrative measures bypass the judicial scrutiny guaranteed under the FDRE
Constitution. Utilizing a qualitative framework, the paper analyses semi-structured
interviews and focus group discussions with legal experts and affected residents,
triangulated against Ethiopia's constitutional and legislative frameworks. The study
identifies three systemic failures: the use of informal circular letters to restrict court
filings; the legislative ouster of jurisdiction via Article 28 of Proclamation No.
721/2011; and the lack of institutional impartiality when grievances are heard by
the same administrative bodies executing the demolitions. These findings suggest
that demolition often functions as a "final judgment," effectively bypassing the right
of access to justice stipulated under Article 37 of the FDRE Constitution. The
suspension of judicial oversight erodes public trust in the rule of law. The study
recommends a robust adherence to constitutional principles supported by legislative
framework to restore the judiciary’s power of review over administrative actions.