1.

Defin basic error of law

Basic error of law is an error used to mean errors which are harmful in the line of ―the
harmless error doctrine‖ which generally holds that any error, defect, irregularity or variance
which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded. Basic error of law also called Plain
Error. Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not
brought to the attention of the court. And even though there is no illustration of the implications
“basic error of law” in general and on evidentiary errors in particular, the experience of the
cassation division shows, among others, the cases depict that there is a basic error of law when
any court renders a decision or makes ruling. (1) When false evidence is produced against the
party (b) by framing an issue which the pleadings or oral arguments of the parties have not raised
or (c) by failing to consider an issue the pleadings are oral arguments of the parties have raised
and the like.1.

2. Define basic error of facts

Basic error of fact or question of the fact which can be arise where there is substantial deficiency
in the determination of evidentiary matter relating to the dispute between the litigants or
an issue that involves the resolution of a factual dispute or controversy and is within the sphere 
of the decisions to be made by a judge subject matter at hand.
Accordingly basic error of facts means error in either the admission or the exclusion of
evidence and error or defect in any ruling or order or in anything done or omitted by the court or by any
of the parties is ground for granting a new trial or for setting aside a verdict or for vacating, modifying, or
otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with
substantial justice. The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the
proceeding which does affect the substantial rights of the parties 2. Any mistaken belief other than a
mistake of law. Examples include erroneous beliefs about the meaning of some term or about the identity
of some person. The mistake must be on a existing fact (including mistake as to the availability of
evidence on a particular matter); The fact must be uncontentious; The claimant must not be responsible
for the mistake; and. The mistake must have placed a material part in the tribunal's reasoning 3. Basic
error of fact is occurred when the court to admit unreliable or prejudicial evidence and where the
trial judge had failed to appreciate the impact of a piece of evidence and to draw the correct
factual inferences and conclusions from it. In so doing, the court considered the principles
applicable to appeals against findings of fact. which lead it to a hasty conclusion. Questions
of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. When the appellate court determines
that a lower court’s finding of fact is clearly erroneous, the appellate court may reverse that
finding. This standard is only applied to fact finding by judges.
 3. A judgment review by appellate is a review on the merit for factual and legal errors,
including ―basic errors of law‖ (whatever it means) Review on the ‗merit‘ must be
understood to mean a review which for procedural or other errors results in the
reconsideration of the merit of the case to finally conform ,modify or reverse the final
decision on the case. Where the case has been appealed, the appellate court should only decide
only as many issues as are necessary for the confirmation or reversal of the judgment,
4. A judgement review by cassation court review is similar to appeal except that it is
limited to the review of ―basic errors of law. In court of cassation both at Federal and State
Courts, a party may take an application for revision in Court of Cassation, only after he/she has
exhausted all his rights of appeal. More over, unlike the appellate court, the court of cassation
only reviewed the decision of the lower courts if it has an error of law, not error of fact.

5. Determination of error of law in common law legal system

Common law countries such as Britain and United states of America do not have the power of
Cassation which is exactly the same as the cassation system of civil law countries. The legality
of judicial action is the primary concern of the supreme courts of many of the civil law
jurisdictions. In contrast, in Common law countries just mentioned the three powers - the power
to control of the legality of judicial action, of administrative action, and of legislative action - are
often lumped together and given to their respective regular courts, particularly to their supreme
courts.11 The judicial function which examines the legality of lower court decisions, USA
Supreme Court and the House of Lords of England) in reviewing the legality of judicial
decisions4.

Basic error of law Fundamental error is a legal term provided by United States Courts to
describe an error which occurs whenever a judgement violates a federal fundamental right.
In United States constitutional law, fundamental rights have special significance under the U.S.
Constitution. Those rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution are recognized as "fundamental"
by the U.S. Supreme Court. State courts within the United States may define fundamental error
rules independently of the federal courts. State fundamental error rules may include errors which
violate rights in additional to those rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, but these rules
may not infringe upon federal fundamental rights.[1] Any law restricting such a right must both
serve a compelling state purpose and be narrowly tailored to that compelling purpose.
Fundamental errors are both plain errors and reversible errors. Fundamental errors are similar to
substantial errors; however, the definition of a "substantial error" may differ slightly among the
courts. A fundamental error is consistent among all US Courts as these errors violate the
fundamental rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. In other words, all substantial errors are
not necessarily fundamental errors, but all fundamental errors are substantial errors. Courts often
review questions of whether a fundamental error occurred in post-conviction proceedings, such
as a direct appeal, the writ of habeas corpus or the writ of coram nobis. Fundamental error, as a
rule, is an extremely difficult claim to succeed in an appeal. Congress and state legislatures may
enact regulations on these proceeding, such as time limits for the filing post-conviction motions,
in efforts to reduce judicial caseloads. In Murray v. Carrier, the Supreme Court ruled that the
concept of fundamental error applies to those cases in which the defendant was probably ...
actually innocent." The Court then specified that "in an extraordinary case, where a constitutional
violation has probably resulted in the conviction of one who is actually innocent, a federal
habeas court may grant the writ even in the absence of a showing of cause for the procedural
default.

A petitioner may lose their chance to claim a violation of his or her Fundamental rights if there is
a procedural default on the claim. Some procedural defaults include intentionally waiving their
right to make the claim, or not filing the claim in a timely manner. If state courts provide
adequate means of challenging federal fundamental errors, then a procedural default may not be
appealed to a federal court. However, if state courts do not provide adequate means of
challenging the errors, then a federal court has jurisdiction to hear the claim The Supreme Court
held in Coleman v. Thompson that a petitioner who failed to comply with a timeliness
requirement in a state court could nevertheless plead their claims on the merits in federal court if
the petitioner could show that "failure to consider the claims [would] result in a fundamental
miscarriage of justice.5 In common law legal system The basis for an extra - ordinary revision in
civil cases is where there occurs a "glaring violation of the law which is understood to mean a
judgment of appellate court which contains error of law affecting materially the out come of the
case.28 In penal cases, on the other hand, the basis of an extra-ordinary revision may be any
objection that the party can raise at lodging the revision with the court of the second instance.
This shows that the Supreme Court can entertain issue of fact since in the first appellate court a
party could raise error of fact. The Supreme Court has also the power to issue directives to
inferior courts on matters of the administration of justice and of judicial practice; for the purpose
of unifying the interpretation of law by the lower courts it has the power to explain provisions
which cause doubts or the application of which brought about discrepancies among judges.

6. Determination of Basic error of law in Continental Law Countries law legal system

Many of the continental law countries such as France, Italy, Egypt, Japan and Germany have
supreme courts referred to as cassation or revision courts. Some of these courts do have merely
the power to break the force of the validity of a judgment and send it back to a lower court.
Whereas the others have both the power to quash the judgment and substitute it by their own new
judgment. The Cassation courts of France and Italy fall into the first category. While Japanese
and German revision courts fall into the latter category. First let us consider the case of France
and Italy. At the pinnacle of the regular courts of France stands its court of cassation ('court de
Cassation'). It consists of two chambers: one civil chamber and one criminal chamber.The former
is sub-divided into social commercial, civil and screening chambers; each of these chambers is
composed of sixteen judges of whom eleven must sit in order to dispose of a case.40 The
screening chamber also known as the chamber of Requests receives and evaluates all petitions
and requests for review, conducts a preliminary inquire into the merits, dockets those it considers
to be worthy for review by the court and rejects all others. This chamber does not guarantee that
each of the court will actually contain error of law. If, one its face, the application seems serious,
the chamber sends it to either the criminal or commercial or civil chamber, as the case may be.
The chamber to which a case is referred to is supposed to annual the decision when it contains a
violation of law.

A Violation of Law Includes: I. Erroneous interpretation of a statute or of an executive decree

having statutory force. This contemplates an error which has been inadvertent on the part of the
lower court or represents the court's deliberate view of what under the circumstance is legally
sufficient,43 II. Lack of jurisdiction of the person or of the subject matter. The judgment
rendered by a court which does not have jurisdiction is put aside even if the lower court has
decided the case correctly; that is, even if review could not bring any difference in the outcome
of the case. This is defended as follows: the lower court's action is ultra vices and the legislature,
by apportioning judicial power among the various level of courts, has expressed an important
policy the higher the court the more competent and experienced the judges are. Usurpation by the
court of authority belonging to the executive or legislative departments of government.48 France
has a body which reviews administrative legality referred to as Council of State and another
organ which controls the conformity of laws with the Constitution.49 So in case where any
regular court enters into a province which belongs to either of these bodies, error of law is said to
have been committed by that court. IV. Breach of form to which the law has attached the penalty
of nullity; and V. A conflict of two judgments in last instances between the same parties and
involving the same subject matter. If the chamber which dwells upon a case decides that the
lower court has committed an error of law in light of the above illustrative listing, it will quash
the decision and send the case back to a new court of the same level as the one whose decision is
quashed. This new court the court of rehearing has jurisdiction over the whole dispute. On the
point of law that was submitted to the court of cassation, it may adopt the court's point of view,
in which case the litigation is terminated and the new court's decisions is final. If the court of
rehearing, however, refuses to follow the court of cassation, as it has the right to do so for the
doctrine of precedent does not apply in France a new petition to that court can be taken. In such a
case, the dispute comes before the whole Court of Cassation sitting together ('chambers
reunites'). Where all the Chambers of the court sitting together quash the decision against which
the second petition is brought, it again sends the case back to a court of the same level. On the
point of law which the Court of Cassation has decided, this new court must yield before the
opinion of the 'Chambers reunites

7. Determination Basic of error of law in Ethiopian legal system

Needless to mention, the Ethiopian legal system is used to be typical follow continental legal
system as it mainly contains four substantive codes i.e., Civil Code, Criminal Code, Commercial
Code and Maritime Code and two procedural codes i.e., Civil Procedure Code and Criminal
Procedure Code.  
However, with the advent of system of Cassation in Ethiopia legal system, which empowered to
decision which have a binding effects on the lower courts at any level, Cassation over Cassation,
yardsticks for the measurement of basic and fundamental error of law and competence of
Cassation to review final decision of arbitral tribunal becomes the most controversial issues in
Ethiopia jurisprudence. 
 1. Determination Basic of error of law under federal legislation
The Constitution as a grand norm of the country contains some of the most fundamental rules and
principles and hence, it’s drafted in a broader manner. Since the Constitution stand as a supreme
normative act within the legal order of a state, it’s usually drafted in a more general manner.
Moreover, the Constitution under the source for other legislations.

The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Constitution under Article 80 state that:

1. The Federal Supreme Court shall have the highest and final judicial power over Federal
matters.
2. State Supreme Courts shall have the highest and final judicial power over State matters.
3. Notwithstanding the Provision of sub-Articles 1 and 2 of this Article;

a. The Federal Supreme Court has a power of cassation over any final court decision containing a
basic error of law. Particular shall be determined by the law.
b. The State Supreme Court has power of cassation over any final court decision on State matters
which contains a basic error of law. Particular shall be determined by law.
Federal Court Proclamation No. 1234/2021 under Article 10 made it abundantly clear that “in
case where they contain fundamental error of law.
Grounds that constitute basic error of law
True, as per Article 80(3) of the Constitution, Federal Supreme Court Cassation Division
entertains only “basic and fundamental error of law”. From the close reading of the above-cited
provision, one can infer two points: an error of fact and a minor error of law by the lower courts
are not eligible for review by the grand court. However, there is no clear yardstick as to what
constitute an issue of fact and issue of law. Even worse, there is no criteria to distinguish basic
error of law and minor error of law.
Federal Court Proclamation No. 1234/2021 with the view to shed light on what constitute a basic
error of law provided an illustrative list of grounds which considers as basic and fundamental
error of law.  The draft proclamation under Article 2(4) define basic or fundamental error of law
as error of law that includes final judgment, ruling, order or decree which may filled in Federal
Supreme Court Cassation division pursuant to Article 10 of this Proclamation and/ or contains
either one or similar of the following basic errors and grossly distresses justice.
As per the above-cited article of the proclamation, grossly distresses justice includes but not
limited to violation of the constitution, misinterpreting a legal provision or by applying an
irrelevant law to the case, by framing the appropriate issue or by framing an issue irrelevant to
the litigation, denying an award judgment to a justiciable matter, giving an order in execution
proceedings unwarranted by the main decision, the absence of jurisdiction over the subject
matter dispute, an administrative act or decision rendered in a contradiction with the law and
finally, any decision in contravene with the decision of cassation  is considered as basic and
fundamental error of law.
These illustrative grounds of what constitute fundamental error of law as per the draft
proclamation will make uncertainty and is like walking in the dark for the case to be presented
for Federal Supreme Court Cassation Division. Take for instance, basic error of law that arise “if
the court denying to an award judgment to justiciable matters.”   This article is drafted with the
assumptions that defining justiciable matter is easy and there is clear difference between what
constitute justiciable and non-justiciable matter.
Citation

1. “The cassation Division and the Requirements for Basic Error of law” Muradu Abdo
WONBER” law Jour 2nd half-year, January 2008 at P 52-53
2. Gibbs: Prejudicial Error: Admissions and Exclusions of Evidence in the
3. Google basic error of fact legal opinion
4. Wikipedia