FORTUNE+ VIDEO SPONSORED CONTENTS ADVERTORIALS FORTUNE AUDIO Fortune Careers TRADE AFRICA Election 2026 New TIME REMAINING UNTIL ETHIOPIA’S NATIONAL ELECTION 0Days 0Hours 0Minutes 0Seconds



IN A NUTSHELL

  • A dispute over a parking space has become a broader test of shared property rights in Addis Abeba.
  • Sina View Hotel & Apartments contains 19 units, with nine retained by the developer and 10 sold to buyers.
  • Courts ruled in favour of the flat owners, ordering either the restoration of the parking area or the payment of two million Birr in compensation.
  • The case exposed tension between formal contracts, unnotarised agreements and actual use of common space.
  • The dispute comes as Addis Abeba’s property market expands, with more than 200 active developers and an estimated 200,000 private-sector units.

Disputes over balconies, parking spaces, staircases, elevators, and decisions about hiring security personnel or janitors have begun to define Addis Abeba’s residential life as apartment owners, developers, and residents’ associations jostle over who controls common areas.

In some compounds, the initial owners act as administrators. In others, homeowners’ associations assume the role. Elsewhere, individual residents claim specific spaces. The overlapping claims have spilt into courtrooms, produced conflicting rulings and exposed how unsettled shared urban properties have become.

One such dispute reached the Cassation Bench of the Supreme Court, where justices ruled that the case did not merit their review.

Yet the refusal to hear it has done little to quiet a controversy beyond a single parking area. It has sharpened questions about who holds authority in apartment developments, how far formal contracts extend, and whether practice can override written title and administrative power.

The case pitted a property developer, Kunesnes Tek’e, against plaintiffs who own flats at Sina View Hotel & Apartments, a 19-unit building on Guinea Conakry Street in the Casanchis neighbourhood, which the defendant developed.


Filed in 2022 before the Federal First Instance Court’s Qirqos Bench, the legal battle was brought by Samson Mengistu, Dereje Fafu, Tsegenet Legesse, Abi Kibra, Elsabet Minda, Kibebetsehay Tekilie, Hiwote Abebe, Getu Kasayu and Yontatan Kasa, who his guardian, Yemisrach Negasi, represented. They sued Kunesnes, claiming that buying their apartments also entitled them to 195Sqm of parking space. They claimed Kunesnes blocked access to the area, and dug it up, leaving it unusable, and appealed to the Court to order her to stop "the interference" and pay two million Birr to restore the parking area.

Kunesnes rejected the claim. Her lawyers argued that the plaintiffs had no ownership rights over the parking lot and that the lease contracts, authenticated by the Documents Verification & Registration Service, granted them only proportional rights in the building’s common parts, corridors, staircases and lifts, but not in the parking area. She also claimed the excavation was part of a lawful plan to build a hotel on the land, work she carried out as the landholder.

The dispute arrived as life in Addis Abeba has gradually shifted. Living in condominiums, apartments and large real estate compounds is now routine. Official records show more than 200 real estate developers are active in the city, while over 3,000 developers have secured permits for new projects. Unofficial estimates put the number of formal private-sector apartment and real estate units at more than 200,000, with about 130 active developers.

Many residents say owning an apartment or condominium offers more security and convenience than owning a house on a plot of land. Rapid urban development and demolitions have also pushed buyers toward apartment living, often seen as more affordable. But the shift has come at a cost, such as more shared walls and common spaces, leading to growing disputes over who may use, manage, and alter them.


At the centre of the dispute between Kunesnes and the plaintiff is the property located adjacent to the Elili Hotel.


The apartment building sits on 240sqm of land. On the ground floor are a bakery, a pastry shop and a bar, Tryst Addis. Kunesnes owns nine units, while the other 10 were sold to individual buyers. She leased a total of 882Sqm from the city administration for the combined development of an apartment building and a hotel. The building occupies 240Sqm, while the hotel under construction covers about 642Sqm. Kunesnes wants to incorporate the disputed parking area into the hotel construction, while flat owners claim they have long been prevented from using the space they believed came with their flats.

Judges at the Federal First Instance Court’s Qirqos Bench ruled in favour of the plaintiffs. They found that the plaintiffs had used the parking area for a period and that, under an earlier contract, the space was included with their apartments. The judges held that Kunesnes’s excavation amounted to unlawful interference and ordered her to restore the parking lot. If she failed to do so, she would have to pay two million Birr in compensation.

Kunesnes appealed, arguing that the lower court had erred, holding that the legally valid contracts did not grant the plaintiffs rights to the parking area and that the earlier contracts were not binding. The Federal High Court upheld the ruling, affirming the plaintiffs’ right to use the lot and ordering its restoration.

The case also reopened a long-running argument over who gets to administer such property.

About a decade ago, six apartment owners formed the Andinet Condominium Association and filed suit claiming the right to administer the building. In that dispute, the Cassation Bench ruled in favour of Kunesnes, holding that while homeowners were entitled to proportional benefits, they lacked the right to administer the property. In the recent parking dispute, however, the outcome pointed in a different direction. Although Kunesnes retained the right to administer the building, she was barred from controlling the parking lot.


When the matter reached the Cassation Bench, Justices Zewditu Tadesse, Urga Getahun and Hailemariam Moges ruled that it involved no fundamental legal error and would not be reviewed.

Daniel Fikadu, a veteran lawyer familiar with the case, faulted the ruling. He argued that the Federal Supreme Court had overlooked two fundamental issues.

"The Court had previously determined that Kunesnes held ownership rights over certain property and administrative authority, while the apartment buyers had only possession rights," he told Fortune. "The new reasoning weakened those administrative rights."

According to Daniel, the Court’s reliance on what he called a “unnotarised agreement” was an error of judgment. He cautioned that granting legal effect to informal arrangements, particularly over movable properties, could set a bad precedent.

“Owners should have greater rights,” he said, warning that the Court’s approach could let defendants assume the position of property owners simply by alleging desist. "Inconsistent practice persists over who may administer common areas in such buildings, and the law needs clearer guidance."



PUBLISHED ON Mar 14,2026 [ VOL 26 , NO 1350]


[ratemypost]



[ssba-buttons]

Put your comments here

N.B: A submit button will appear once you fill out all the required fields.


Editors' Pick



Editorial