A system very similar to European feudalism existed in Ethiopia, but arose wholly independent of European influence. It's hard to say exactly when this system crystalized, but it was certainly the dominant social and political structure across much of historic Ethiopia (Abyssinia) by the 13th-14th century until reforms began in the early 20th century.
If you want all the gritty details, check out Donald Crummey's Land and Society in the Christian Kingdom of Ethiopia, or Tadesse Tamrat's Church and State in Ethiopia. In brief, however, you had the typical feudal hierarchy:
The Negus Negast ("King of Kings") was the title of the emperor who nominally "owned" and controlled all land in his empire. In reality, many vassal lords might better be named tributary kings and there were tributary states that were mostly independent on the peripheries, but there were also numerous governors, princes, etc.. whose authority stemmed directly from imperial dispensation.
These lords possessed a suite or rights known as gult rights, which were often explicitly enumerated in royal documents. They gave the bearer rights such as rights to collect tax and tribute on behalf of the king, and for their own personal support. They also gave bearers control over movement through their territory and other judicial powers. In exchange, these lords possessed numerous responsibilities to the emperor, liking following his summons to the royal court, supporting the court (which was highly mobile in many periods) if it traveled through their lands, and participating in military campaigns. Nominally, these gult rights to individual lords were not inheritable and all lords were appointed by the emperor; in practice, however, many traditional kings and chiefs remained part of long-lived dynasties that weren't always particularly loyal or obedient to the emperor.
Parallel to the nobility, powerful church officials and ecclesiastic communities could also receive gult charters, allowing them to act essentially as comparable feudal land-holders. In many instances, these communities were founded by the emperors and served as more direct and loyal vassals entrenched in places where they could check or compete with the power of the less-reliable nobility. I'm not an expert on European fuedalism, but I would hazard a guess that in Ethiopia, the church was more directly and reliably an extension of imperial administration than in Europe where the difference between kings and bishops / the Pope was a little more distinct. Ethiopia was part of the Coptic Patriarchy of Alexandria (Egypt) and was structured along that hierarchical system.
Among the peasantry, you had higher-status agriculturalists, and lower-status occupational castes like potters and blacksmiths, which were sometimes also religious minorities (Jews, typically) who were frequently prohibited nation-wide from owning land and thus prohibited from farming, forcing them to take up other occupations. Agricultural peasants had a system of rights known as rest. Rest rights were not unlike the feudal rights of peasants but for two major differences: peasants could not be alienated from their land by lords (though we can't say for sure this never happened) and peasants were free to move if they so chose. In contrast to European feudalism where lords owned both the land and its people, Ethiopian lords only had rights to the produce of the land and the labor of anyone who so chose to live there.
Foreign merchants (the majority of whom were Muslim caravan traders who lived in Muslim sultanates bordering Ethiopia) existed slightly apart and often traded certain goods in and out of the country at the behest of the nobility and especially the emperor.
Class and status was reinforced and illustrated in many ways, though most notably at and around the royal court. From the 13th or 14th century until the 17th century, the monarchy rarely occupied a single, fixed capital. Rather, the emperor and his entourage frequently migrated around the country and settled for brief periods of times on the landholdings of their vassals or the royally-chartered church estates. This is nearly identical to what Anglo-Saxon and Ottonian German kings did, and probably for the same reason: it allows the king to flex is power over his people directly and forced local lords to expend their wealth supporting the royal court rather than being allowed to save it to raise an army against the king. If a noble was called to court, he might also have to follow his emperor until dismissed, which could mean he had also had to pay to keep his own personal entourage at court and might not see his own home again for months or years, further weakening their power. This mobile royal court was often enormous with conservative estimates in peacetime counting thousands of nobles, military persona, clerical elites, and the peasantry who supported them all. Your position in the social hierarchy was reinforced at camp by where you were allowed to park yourself. The higher your status, the closer you were permitted to reside near the king, who himself lived within a central compound surrounded by cloth walls separating himself from everyone else. There is a well supported theory this camp system was also an imitation of a church and had powerful symbolic meaning, but that's the answer to a different question for later...
Returning to your original question, I would ask you to perhaps reconsider how you phrased it. As Ethiopia demonstrates, feudalism can and did arise independently of feudal systems elsewhere like those in Europe, where we most commonly associate the system.