Land Dispute Cases Heard in the Dili District Court in January 2013

ETLS 01 March 2013 - The following are extracts from the English translation of the Judicial System Monitoring Program's monitoring of procceedings in the Dili District Court in January 2013 pertaining to land disputes.

1. Land Dispute - Case No. 134/Civil/2010/TDD

Dili District Court     

Judge Composition: Single
Judge: Jacinta Correia
Lawyer for the plaintiff: Pedro Aparicio (private lawyer)
Lawyer for the respondent: José Gutteres (private lawyer)
Conclusion: Trial adjourned

On 16 January 2013 the Dili District Court adjourned a trial in a case involving a land dispute which was scheduled to be heard on the aforementioned date. The object of the dispute is located in Becora, Dili.

The trial was adjourned because the court failed to adhere to the schedule of hearings that had been prepared in advance and therefore the lawyer decided to go home. The adjournment occurred because the judge presiding over this matter was attending to another duty that could not be interrupted.

The land at the center of this dispute had been occupied by Chin Qoe Lien since Portuguese times and then in 2005 the land was sold to Fernando Silva.   However, a third party identified as Lay I Fa claimed that the land in dispute belonged to him.

The trial was scheduled to continue on 8 February 2013 at 3pm.

2.  Land dispute - Case No. 08/Civel/2012/TDD

Dili District Court     

Judge Composition: Single
Judge: António Gonçalves
Lawyer for the plaintiff: Julio P. Cardoso (private lawyer)
Lawyer for the respondent: Arlindo Dias (private lawyer)
Conclusion: Settled via an amicable agreement

On 24 January 2013 the Dili District Court conducted a trial in a case involving a dispute over land situated in Becora, Dili that occurred in 2011.  The plaintiff Nuno Barreto Ching brought legal proceedings against the respondent Guilhermino Ching who is the brother of the plaintiff.

During the trial the court tried to get the two parties to reach an amicable settlement, but was unsuccessful in this regard. Therefore the plaintiff requested to the court to settle the case by having the parties reach a traditional settlement.

The respondent welcomed this request and the court gave the two parties 15 days to reconcile. The results of this reconciliation or agreement are to be submitted to the court.

Read the full report on East Timor Law and Justice Bulletin

Source: JSMP Press Release February 2013. Edited by Warren L. Wright