SHARIAsource

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Cilegon Religious Court (lower court) on the grounds that:

1. the lower court had erred in considering documentary evidence prodcued by the respondent;
2. the lower court had incorrectly evaluated documentary evidence produced by the appellant; and
3. the lower court had incorrectly evaluated the relationship with certain evidentiary elements, contrary to art 1365 of the Civil Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata).

The Court re-examined all that went before the lower court, noting that the appellant alleged the respondent had unlawfully cancelled its provision of investment financing to the plaintiff for IDR 3.3 billion, via a letter dated 8 May 2013. This allegedly contradicted a previous letter, dated 26 February 2013, in which the respondent had acceded to the appellant's request for financing from 20 November 2012. As a result, the appellant claimed he had suffered IDR 220 million in special damages, and IDR 1 billion in general damages.

The respondent refuted the allegation, saying that after it had conducted a review of the appellant approaching the transaction, it had realised that the appellant had changed where it would allocate the financing, inconsistent with its original plan. Accordingly, the respondent cancelled the financing facility via the 8 May 2013 letter.

The Court concurred with the lower court, finding no causal connection between the conduct of the respondent and the loss the appellant claimed to have suffered. Moreover, it found nothing unlawful about the respondent's decision to renege on its initial offer.