Sat, 15 Apr 2000

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)