Zecharias Fassil Ethiopian nationality or at least one of his parents or grandparents or great grandparents was an Ethiopian national.”55 Foreign nationals of Ethiopian origin have the following rights: once the person secures the identification card stating he/she is a foreign national of Ethiopian origin she/he is not required to have an entry visa or residence permit to live in Ethiopia, has the right to be employed with no need for a work permit with the exception of the defence, security and foreign affairs sectors and in political establishments, is covered by an applicable pension scheme, can own immovable property, can be regarded as a domestic investor and enjoys economic, social and administrative services.56 This intermediate status is the closest version of dual nationality minus participation in political affairs. The government seem to have chosen this mechanism to strengthen economic and social ties. The following cases illustrate the practical application of the privileges for foreigners of Ethiopian origin. In the case of Million Asheanfi Vs. Elsabeth Tadesse, the couple had been living in England and had been naturalised to UK citizenship and their children had UK citizenship. However, a plea for divorce was instituted at the first instance court in Ethiopia. Considering the fact that the case concerned a private international law matter, the lower court deferred the case to the higher court. The higher court ruled that as the case has more relationship to the UK, as the marriage was concluded in the UK and their citizenship is of a foreign country, the case needed to be heard in the UK. The plaintiff, however requested for it to be heard in Ethiopia as it mainly concerned an immovable property located in Ethiopia and this was the core issue in the effect of the divorce. Therefore, the cassation bench in file number 155950 ruled that the decision of the high court constituted an error of law and the court needed to revisit the case as it has national jurisdiction on the case.57 This case provides important insight into how nationality issues can blur the perspective on the main cause of action. The judges in the two tiers of the judiciary differed over whether the matter was a foreign case. This problem could have occurred because of a lack of comprehensive awareness of nationality law. In Sophia Ponatiyos vs Midregenet Cooperative House Building PLC, federal cassation court case number 111618, the plaintiff moved out of Addis Ababa and started living in the USA. In the process she later changed her Ethiopian nationality and became a US citizen. Before she moved to the US, she had entered a cooperative house development project and had a share of a plot of land. The cooperative, cognisant of the fact that she was no longer in Ethiopia, issued a requirement for her to produce her Addis Ababa city dweller ID. This was practically impossible for her or for her agent. As this document was not produced, the cooperative attempted to remove her from the housing project by decision of its arbitration committee. This plaintiff alleged that this action constituted a fundamental error of law as the mere requirement to provide a city dweller ID could not be a ground for removing her from membership and property ownership. Instead, she had an ID that stated she was a foreign national of Ethiopian origin and submitted a copy to the PLC. Therefore, the cassation bench of the federal supreme court of Ethiopia ruled that this case constituted a fundamental error of law. It can be concluded that the IDs issued in this regard safeguarded the interests of these Ethiopian-origin foreign nationals. The legal conflicts arise from perceptions that the 55 Regulation Number 449/2019, Article 2(5). Proclamation 270/2002, Article 5. 57 Cassation bench is a specialised bench under the Federal Supreme court of Ethiopia. 56 20 RSCAS/GLOBALCIT-CR 2020/9- © 2020 Author(s)