Only plaintiff can drop lawsuit, 'despite settlement'

JAKARTA (JP): An official defended on Friday the Supreme Court's decision in 1998 to continue the hearing and issue the verdict of a 1991 land dispute, despite the two disputed parties having settled the matter out of court.

The Supreme Court's director for civil cases Harifin A. Tumpa said that despite the settlement deal, the only party eligible to request a halt to the Supreme Court's hearing was the plaintiff.

"It's useless for the party being sued to ask the Supreme Court to drop the suit, even if a settlement deal has been signed. The case will still go to court," Harifin told The Jakarta Post.

He was referring to the Supreme Court's decision to issue a verdict in 1998 over the 1991 land dispute between businessman Bustami and the plaintiff Benyamin Laoh, despite the fact that both parties signed a settlement deal in 1994.

Harifin admitted that the Supreme Court had received the request for a halt of the Court's hearing, but said that the request was filed by Bustami, instead of Benyamin.

"Even if Djunaidi says that both parties had requested the Supreme Court to drop the civil lawsuit, I have evidence here stating that only Djunaidi has requested that the lawsuit be dropped," he said, referring to Bustami's lawyer.

"It's useless. It's Benyamin who should ask for this, not Bustami or his lawyer."

Earlier, Djunaidi accused Supreme Court officials of having lost the written agreement.

"The negligence of the officials has led the Supreme Court to give judgment in favor of the other party in the case, Benyamin Laoh," Djunaidi said on Wednesday.

In a ruling issued in 1998, the Supreme Court ordered Bustami to return the disputed 633 square meters of land on Jl. Tanah Tinggi Timur in Central Jakarta to Benyamin.

Harifin said the issue should not be the ruling anymore, but the settlement deal.

"This settlement deal binds both parties and if both abide by it, the Supreme Court ruling has no effect... it's meaningless. The problem arises when one party tries to neglect the deal, say for instance, Benyamin," Harifin said.

"If that's the case, Bustami has the right to sue Benyamin, based on the settlement deal," he said, while citing Article 1338 of the Civil Code on written agreements.

Harifin dismissed the allegations that Court officials had lost the copy of the settlement deal, while showing the Post the original copy of the deal, which the Supreme Court received on Nov. 20, 1996, two years before the verdict was issued on Oct. 5, 1998.

"If my people lost documents, an investigation would be carried out. The Supreme Court decided to try the case since the lawsuit was never legally dropped, despite the settlement. Not because of loss of documents," he said.

Separately, Djunaidi told the Post on Friday that if Harifin had taken the time to read the settlement deal, which is in the form of a booklet, he would not have said that only the litigant had the right to revoke the civil lawsuit.

"In that settlement deal, it is clearly stated that both parties will not consider any verdict on this case, and that both the plaintiff and the party being sued, had the full right to revoke the lawsuit from the Supreme Court," Djunaidi said.

"When this case reached the courtroom, the pages in that booklet, which stated the following, were gone. I have the original copy of the booklet, and so does Harifin."

In 1991, the local district court rejected an action brought by Benyamin against Bustami over the disputed land. Benyamin lost and appealed to the High Court, which also ruled against him in 1993.

Benyamin then appealed the case to the Supreme Court in the following year, and won in 1998.

Djunaidi said that Benyamin -- after filing his appeal with the Supreme Court -- approached his client asking to settle the case out of court. Bustami finally agreed to pay Benjamin Rp 175 million (US$20,114) in settlement of the dispute.

The settlement deal between the parties was then forwarded to the Supreme Court in July 1994, the lawyer said, which was denied by Harifin, who said that the Supreme Court received it in 1996.

Bustami only realized that he had lost the case, according to Djunaidi, when he learned that the appeal had been heard by the Supreme Court without his knowledge.

Djunaidi said his client wanted the Supreme Court to review the case since its officials had lost copies of the settlement deal.

In the letter to Ketut, Djunaidi said his client had legally purchased the land for Rp 150 million from Benyamin in 1991, but that the latter had then claimed that the land deal had been canceled and that he had returned Rp 125 million to Bustami. (ylt)