Humpuss gets back building

Humpuss gets back building

JAKARTA (JP): The diversified Humpuss Group of companies is
ready to reoccupy its sealed off twin-tower property after it
secured a legal guarantee from the Jakarta State Administrative
High Court (PTTUN), which was upholding a verdict from the lower
administrative court.

"The verdict, which decided the Central Jakarta Mayoralty's
order to seal off the property was unlawful, was issued on Jan.
19. We, as well as the mayoralty, received the ruling on March
15. But the mayoralty didn't file an appeal to the Supreme Court
within 14 days as is required by law," Humpuss Group president
Abdul Wahab told reporters at his office on Friday.

"Therefore, we now have the legal right to reoccupy our
property," he said, while citing that he received the guarantee
of the ownership of the towers from the PTTUN on Thursday
afternoon.

The locks on the doors were opened by officials from the
mayoralty and witnessed by Humpuss' executives on Friday morning.

The mayoralty ordered the building to be sealed off on March
25 last year, accusing the group of violating a presidential
decree which regulates that buildings in the National Monument
(Monas) area in Central Jakarta must be used for government
agencies only.

The towers, located on Jl. Medan Merdeka Timur, were built to
house the companies which were privately owned by the Humpuss
Group.

Humpuss, which is owned by former president Soeharto's
youngest son Hutomo Mandala Putra, filed a lawsuit against the
order to the Jakarta State Administrative Court (PTUN) and won
the court's decision on July 22 last year. The mayoralty then
appealed to PTTUN to overturn the decision.

Wahab said the group suffered revenue losses of some Rp 20
billion from the building tenants' leases, not to mention the
lost business opportunities.

He said the order practically stopped all business activity,
which in turn caused a loss in taxes for the government revenue.

City administration spokesman Muhayat said separately that the
administration lost the case because of its ignorance to court
procedures.

"We should have sent three warning letters prior to the
closure," he said. (nvn)