Bogor Religious Court Decision No. 883 of 2015: Murabahah Loan

The plaintiff and his wife were married on 16 June 2003. On 31 December 2008, his wife passed away due to illness. Prior to her passing, however, she had entered into a murabahah financing agreement with the first defendant (PT. Bank Negara Indonesia Syariah Tbk (BNI Syariah) Kantor Cabang Bogor), dated 28 August 2008, for IDR 3,011,250,000. The loan was obtained in order to pay out an existing home loan with Bank Mega for IDR 2,443,038,800. The additional IDR 568,211,200 borrowed was for home renovations. The term of the murabahah agreement was 120 months (28 August 2008 until 27 August 2018). Of the IDR 3,011,250,000 from the first defendant, the plaintiff only received IDR 1.65 billion: IDR 1,338,651,397 for the purposes of paying out the Bank Mega loan, and IDR 311,348,603 for home renovations. The remaining IDR 1,361,250,000 was the first defendant's profit. In order to obtain the loan, the plaintiff's wife leveraged the same property she and the plaintiff had planned to renovate.

The plaintiff submitted that he had become concerned about the issuance, on 26 December 2008, of a power of attorney to deal with the property, as both he and his wife had been in South Kalimantan from 26-30 December 2008, and therefore had not signed anything. Accordingly, the plaintiff had included the first co-defendant in his action as she was the land title issuing officer who had executed the mortgage deed. The plaintiff also submitted that he had inquired on several occasions with the second defendant as to who had signed the power of attorney, or whether the second defendant believed the signatures of the plaintiff and his wife had been forged.

While the plaintiff's wife was alive, she had paid each monthly instalment on time for the four months before she passed away. The plaintiff submitted that, pursuant to the murabahah agreement, his wife's life insurance should cover the remaining sum of the agreement. The first defendant, however, had requested that the plaintiff as his deceased wife's beneficiary continue to make repayments, pursuant to the agreement. The plaintiff submitted that such requests, as well as the first defendant directing him several times to vacate the leveraged property so that it could be auctioned immediately through the third co-defendant, had caused him psychological distress, and constituted a contractual default and illegal conduct, contrary to arts 1320 and 1338 of the Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata).

In material damages, the plaintiff requested IDR 250 million, while in immaterial damages for pain and suffering, the plaintiff sought IDR 2.5 billion. The plaintiff submitted that the first defendant's conduct had been contrary to several Islamic law principles, including aqidah or TauhidullahTasyri'iyahKaffah, and Akhlak, as well as shari'a banking principles including riba (interest), maisir (speculation), and zalim (injustice).

The court found that the plaintiff was not able to produce any evidence suggesting that the power of attorney to deal with the property had been forged. In regard to the plaintiff's wife's life insurance paying out the remaining contract sum, the court found that this was the prerogative of the insurance company itself (PT. Asuransi Takaful Keluarga). Based on the evidence before it, the court concluded, and the plaintiff conceded, that the insurance company had not agreed to cover the sum in question because it believed the medical condition of the deceased exempted it from having to do so. The court found, however, that the first defendant had made a genuine attempt to compel the insurance company to cover the sum. Accordingly, it dismissed the plaintiff's application in its entirety and ordered him to pay costs totalling IDR 2,131,000.

FirstPreviousPage 1 of of 11NextLast