SHARIAsource

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Medan Religious Court (lower court). The lower court had determined that the non-issuance of a building permit from the Medan Spatial and Building Service (Dinas Tata Ruang dan Tata Bangunan Kota Medan) constituted a force majeure. Accordingly, it found that:

1. the respondent (then plaintiff) was released from any liability under the murabahah credit facility agreement it had entered into with the appellant (the defendant) on 10 September 2013; and
2. that the appellant must return to the respondent two deeds of title to properties leveraged by the respondent in return for the murabahah credit facility.

The appellant challenged the decision of the lower court on the following grounds:

1. that the decision was erroneous and not based in law, insofar as the object of the agreement was stated as being three units, whereas it was for the purchase of building construction materials;
2. that the lower court had incorrectly labelled the credit facility an al-bai', per art 20(2) of the Compilation of Shari'a Economy Laws, rather than a murabahah credit facility, that is, a credit facility that benefits both parties, provided by a shahib al-mal (creditor), per art 20(6) of the Compilation of Shari'a Economy Laws;
3. that the lower was incorrect in defining the non-issuance of a building permit as a force majeure for the purposes of arts 1244-1245 of the Indonesian Civil Code, and also incorrect in applying the law because a force majeure only results in the parties being released from demands for damages, costs and/or profits to the party experiencing the force majeure, which causes it to default; and
4. that the force majeure submitted by the respondent had already passed because the notice of unsuccessful application for a building permit was dated 5 May 2014, while the appellant was only informed of the notice on 19 August 2014 (three months after the fact), which was contrary to the 14-day statute of limitations contained in art 17(3) of the murabahah credit facility.

The court acceded to the appeal, concurring with the appellant's submission that the respondent was required to inform the appellant of the issuance (or lack thereof) of any relevant building permit, pursuant to the terms of the agreement. Accordingly, the court overturned the decision of the lower court, and ordered the respondent to pay costs.

The appellants sought to challenge the decision of the Medan Religious Court (lower court), which had declared the first appellant's auctioning of the respondents' property invalid, on the grounds that the lower court did not have the jurisdiction to make such judgment.

The court placed great emphasis on the actual transaction (akad) agreed to by the parties, stating that for a dispute between a creditor and debtor to be completely resolved, adherence to the relevant terms of the agreement was of paramount importance. Article 17(3) of the parties' Murabahah agreement provided that, in the event of a dispute, and if deliberative measures had failed, the parties would seek to resolve the dispute before the National Shari'a Arbitration Board (Basyarnas). Article 17(4) then compelled the parties to treat any decision from Basyarnas as first and final.

The court, pursuant to art 1338 of the Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang Undang Hukum Perdata), found art 17 to be legally binding on the parties. Moreover, it cited a fatwa of the National Shari'a Council (Dewan Syari'ah Nasional), which cited verse 1 of Surat Al-Maidah from the Qur'an, which asks believers to abide by, and implement, the agreements they make. Accordingly, the court found that the lower court was precluded from serving as a forum to resolve the parties' dispute. Indeed, the court noted that it was common knowledge in the judiciary, especially in the religious judiciary, that when investigating shari'a economy-related disputes, deference to contractual terms relating to dispute resolution was unequivocal.

This regional regulation prohibits vagrancy and begging of all types, as well as prostitution. In its preamble it states that it aims to prevent persons from preying on the sympathy and mercy of others, labelling such conduct akin to a mental illness or idle behaviour not in accordance with religious teachings. It also states that promiscuity contradicts social and religious norms, and easily endangers the younger generations, as well as facilitating the spread of the HIV/AIDS virus, and other viruses. 

Contravention of the regulation can result in a prison sentence of, at most, six months and/or a fine of as much as IDR 5 million. Coordination and monitoring of the implementation of this regulation rests with the mayor, who may assemble an integrated monitoring team for certain related matters.

The plaintiffs submitted that, in April 2013, the second defendant (employee of PT. Bank SUMUT (first defendant)), via the third defendant, had told Muhammad Erwin (third plaintiff) that he would be released from his financial obligations under his current home loan if he could find a new purchaser for a separate property in the name of Walidi (Walidi property). The third plaintiff alleged that the third defendant had obtained this information from the second defendant because the second defendant and the first defendant's audit team had encountered an irregularity vis-a-vis the Walidi property.

Based on the second defendant's request (via the third defendant), the plaintiff instructed the third defendant to undertake to find a new purchaser for the Walidi property. The third plaintiff and third defendant visited the first plaintiff (Jaka Mulia Damanik) at his home, and asked if the first plaintiff would like to become the new purchaser of the Walidi property. The first plaintiff agreed to do so on the condition that the third plaintiff would loan him IDR 20 million for a separate project. The third plaintiff agreed to do so once the first defendant had released him from his financial obligations pursuant to his own home loan.

On 29 April 2013, at the office of the second defendant, prior to the first plaintiff signing the agreement to purchase the Walidi property, the third defendant encountered the third plaintiff. The third plaintiff was at the second defendant's office to loan to the first plaintiff the IDR 20 million. The third defendant believed this loan money was the down-payment for the purchase of the Walidi property, and, accordingly, told the third plaintiff that the money would be returned that day after the first plaintiff had signed his purchase agreement for the Walidi property. After receiving the money, the third defendant departed quickly, failing to provide the third plaintiff with a receipt for the money. The third plaintiff assumed that the third defendant worked for the first defendant, and that the money would be returned that day upon execution of the Walidi property agreement.

The third defendant allegedly told the third plaintiff that the IDR 20 million, requested by the third defendant for, and on behalf of, the first plaintiff, was a down-payment on the Walidi property agreement. The third defendant also instructed the third plaintiff that it be returned immediately, and that there would be a new purchaser for the Walidi property within the next two months.

On 29 April 2013, after the first plaintiff signed the agreement, transferring ownership of the property from Walidi to the first plaintiff, the first plaintiff was asked by the third defendant to sign a blank withdrawal form. The first defendant, however, did not receive a carbon copy of the withdrawal form. The third plaintiff also sought to recoup his IDR 20 million from the third defendant, but was told by the third defendant to wait two months until there was a new purchaser for the Walidi property. The IDR 20 million had still not been returned by the time the plaintiffs filed their application with the court.

Also on 29 April 2013, the plaintiffs submitted that the first defendant debited the first plaintiff IDR 256 million, without his prior knowledge. The first defendant also credited the first plaintiff with IDR 50 million for overbooking, the defendants claiming that the IDR 50 million designated to pay for objects required by the developer had to originate from the first plaintiff's personal account. The first plaintiff claimed this to be fraudulent on the part of the first defendant.

Ten days after the agreement had been executed, the first plaintiff sought to enforce his agreement with the third plaintiff for IDR 20 million. On Friday 10 May 2013, the third plaintiff transferred IDR 20 million to the first plaintiff's bank account.

On 31 May 2013, the first plaintiff paid to the first defendant the first instalment (IDR 2,445,553). The first and second defendants then sought to recoup the arrears they claimed were owing pursuant to the agreement by sending someone to the first plaintiff's home, as well as by contacting the first plaintiff by telephone, and sending him two written reminders. Then, on 22 October 2013, the second defendant, with a work colleague, attended the first plaintiff's home, directing at the first plaintiff angry and threatening language.

The first and third plaintiffs sought IDR 1.761 billion in damages. In addition, they requested that the court find the agreement transferring the Walidi property to the first plaintiff fraudulent and invalid, and that the defendants pay costs.

The court found that the plaintiffs' statement of claim contained two irregularities:

1. it referred to all three plaintiffs as the plaintiff, failing to separate them as first, second and third plaintiffs; and
2. it incorrectly included the third defendant as a party, despite the parties to the agreement being Jaka Mulia Damanik (first plaintiff) and the first and second defendants.

The court also found that it was precluded on jurisdictional grounds from adjudicating the case, and that the appropriate forum was in fact the Tebing Tinggi Religious Court. Accordingly, it dismissed the case and ordered the plaintiffs to pay costs.

The applicant had submitted a marriage ratification request to the court, dated 8 January 2010. The request stated that she and M. Yusuf bin Jafar (deceased, 29 December 2009) were married in accordance with Islamic shari'a on 10 June 1949, with her older brother Muhammad Yunas acting as her marriage guardian. The marriage was witnessed by two other persons, the names of whom the applicant could not recall. The applicant's dowry was IDR 40.

The applicant required a marriage ratification certificate in order to access her deceased husband's pension, life insurance, and widow's pension. The marriage had never been registered pursuant to current legal provisions. The applicant and her husband, however, had seven children, all of whom were now adults. Moreover, they had never divorced and no one had ever had any objections to their marriage.

In acceding to the applicant's request, the court cited arts 7(2) and (3)(d) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, which granted it powers to solemnise a marriage, as well as one that preceded the enactment of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. The Court also cited the rule of fiqh contained in Kitab Tuhfah Jilid IV, which mandates the recognition of the marriage of a woman who is of age and sound mind ('aqil baligh).