SHARIAsource

The parties entered into a multi-service ijarah (rental) financing agreement on 10 September 2013 for IDR 15 million. The defendant agreed to repay the sum in monthly instalments of IDR 895,000 for 24 months. After the defendant defaulted on repayments, the plaintiff sent three separate reminder notices, all to no avail. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought a total of IDR 27 million for the following material damages:

1. principal repayments (IDR 12 million);
2. profit/service fee (IDR 5 million); and
3. legal fees (IDR 10 million).

The plaintiff sought an additional IDR 5 million in immaterial damages. The plaintiff also submitted that the 982m² property leveraged by the defendant be sold or auctioned to cover the defendant's default, pursuant to the terms of the parties' agreement. After the court counselled the parties, however, the plaintiff agreed to withdraw his application.

The plaintiff and the defendants, who were Christian, entered into a musyarakah financing agreement, dated 20 June 2013. The plaintiff submitted that damages owed by the defendants to the plaintiff totalled IDR 50,329,800, based on the defendants' default. After mediation, however, the parties agreed that the defendants would pay to the plaintiff IDR 36,460,800. This would be made in four instalments, the first three instalments being for IDR 300,000 each, and the fourth and final for IDR 35,560,000. If the defendants then defaulted on this revised agreement, the plaintiff had the authority to seize and sell the 2,975m² property used by the defendants to leverage the agreement.

The court ordered that the parties adhere to the terms of this deed of reconciliation (akte perdamaian), and ordered them to share court costs of IDR 471,000.

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 Tauhidullah, Tasyri'iyah, Kaffah, 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.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Surakarta Religious Court, which had found that the then-plaintiff had been dutifully notified of the imminent auctioning of her property, but had failed to act to rectify her default in time. The court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the appellant had still failed to show that she had acted to rectify her default prior to the auction.

The deceased, Burhadi Bin Muhammad Jamil Lahir, died on 24 August 2015 due to illness. He was survived by the first applicant (his wife), the second applicant (his mother), and his three sons. The deceased's father had already passed away and he had no other unstipulated beneficiaries. He also had seven bank accounts (with savings and loans attached) and six properties. The applicants requested that they, and the first applicant's three children, be stipulated as the deceased's beneficiaries.

The court acceded to the applicants' request, finding that sufficient documentary evidence had been produced to establish their submissions.

The court ordered the parties to adhere to the deed of reconciliation (akte perdamaian) reached during mediation, the conditions of which were:

1. that the first and second parties had executed a multi-service rental agreement, dated 31 October 2013;
2. that, pursuant to that agreement, the second party had guaranteed to the first party the deed of title of a 2,739m² property belonging to the co-defendant located in Yogyakarta;
3. that the second party would make monthly repayments of IDR 1 million on the 25th of every month, commencing in January 2016, and ceasing in December 2016;
4. that if the second party defaulted the Yogyakarta property would be seized and sold to discharge the debts of the second party to the first party;
5. that if the second party discharged all his debts to the first party then the first party would return the deed of title to the property;
6. that these terms will be included in the court's decision, and the parties are obliged, in good faith (itikad baik), to implement the aforementioned terms of reconciliation.

The court ordered the parties to adhere to the terms of the deed of reconciliation (akte perdamaian), dated 21 March 2016, which were:

1. that the parties had executed a musyarakah agreement on 27 June 2013;
2. that, pursuant to Civil Case Complaint No: 0110/Pdt.G/2016/PA.Wno, the quantum of damages payable by the second party to the first party was IDR 67,407,000, but, based on the outcome of mediation between the parties, the amount to be repaid by the second party is IDR 38,500,000;
3. that based on musyarakah agreement No: 04524/LPDB/BMT-DI/MSA/27/VI/2013, dated 27 June 2013, the second party provided to the first party as collateral the deed of title to the co-defendant's 1,421m² Yogyakarta property;
4. that the second party had agreed to repay the contract price in monthly IDR 2 million instalments, on the 30th date of every month, from March 2016 until July 2016, the sixth repayment being IDR 28.5 million, due on 31 August 2016;
5. that if the second party defaulted, the first party was entitled to seize and sell the property to discharge the debts of the second party;
6. that if the second party had discharged his debts to the first party, then the deed of title to the property would be returned to the second party;
7. that all court costs relating to civil case no: 0110/Pdt.G/2016/PA.Wno would be borne by the first party;
8. that these terms will be included in the court's decision, and the parties are obliged, in good faith (itikad baik), to implement the aforementioned terms of reconciliation;
9. that the parties agree for this deed of reconciliation to be affirmed in a court decision.

The court ordered the parties to adhere to the deed of reconciliation (akte perdamaian) reached during mediation, the conditions of which were:

1. that the first and second parties had executed a multi-service rental agreement, dated 25 July 2014;
2. that, pursuant to Civil Case Complaint No: 0036/Pdt.G/2016/PA.Wno, the quantum of damages payable by the second party to the first party was IDR 42,535,000, but, based on the outcome of mediation between the parties, the amount to be repaid by the second party is IDR 30,000,000;
3. that, pursuant to that agreement, the second party had guaranteed to the first party the deed of title of a 332m² Yogyakarta property belonging to the first co-defendant;
4. that the second party would make monthly repayments, the first of which would be IDR 2 million, the second to 10th of which would be IDR 3 million, to be paid on the 25th day of each month, with a final repayment of IDR 1 million payable on 25 January 2017;
5. that if the second party defaulted, the Yogyakarta property would be seized and sold to discharge the debts of the second party to the first party;
6. that if the second party discharged all his debts to the first party then the first party would return the deed of title to the property;
7. that these terms will be included in the court's decision, and the parties are obliged, in good faith (itikad baik), to implement the aforementioned terms of reconciliation;
8. that the parties agree for this deed of reconciliation to be affirmed in a court decision.

The court ordered the parties to adhere to the deed of reconciliation (akte perdamaian) reached during mediation, the conditions of which were:

1. that the first and second parties had executed a multi-service rental agreement, dated 31 October 2013;
2. that, pursuant to that agreement, the second party had guaranteed to the first party the deed of title to a 2,739m² property belonging to the co-defendant located in Yogyakarta;
3. that the second party would make monthly repayments of IDR 1 million on the 25th of every month, commencing in January 2016 and ceasing in December 2016;
4. that if the second party defaulted the Yogyakarta property would be seized and sold to discharge the debts of the second party to the first party;
5. that if the second party discharged all his debts to the first party then the first party would return the deed of title to the property;
6. that these terms will be included in the court's decision, and the parties are obliged, in good faith (itikad baik), to implement the aforementioned terms of reconciliation.

This fatwa states that a mosque may be used as, for example, an educational facility, meeting room, or child recreation centre, provided that such activities:

1. do not contravene shari'a;
2. always respect the mosque; and
3. do not disturb those praying or performing other rituals (ibadah).

Similarly, hiring out parts of a mosque for wedding receptions, for example, is permitted provided the mosque is treated with respect in the process. These conditions apply to land and objects donated pursuant to a waqf as well.

Sujak and Nuryani were married on 3 August 1982 and had two children (Tugik Dini Rike Nur Anggrainingsih (23) and Almaiciko Bawita Firnanda (13)). They also owned a property they had purchased with Nuryani's inheritance and Sujak's pension funds. The property had been placed in the name of their first child, Tugik, but was tenanted by Nuryani's mother (Wartini) and another family member (Rumini). On 5 February 2005, Nuryani passed away due to illness. On 12 February 2012, Nuryani's father, Joyo Suwito, passed away, also due to illness. On 23 December 2014, Tugik relocated to East Kalimantan with her husband. Then, on 8 December 2015, Sujak passed away. Since Sujak's passing, Almaiciko had been cared for by her uncle (Nuryani's younger brother), the applicant (Mutaal). As Almaiciko was still under the legal age of consent, the applicant sought from the court a stipulation that he was Almaiciko's legal guardian.

The court acceded to the application for guardianship, pursuant to arts 50(1) and 51(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, in conjunction with art 107(4) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, on the grounds that Almaiciko was under the age of consent (and not yet married) and that the applicant was a family member and, therefore, a legitimate applicant for guardianship.

The first applicant was the wife of the deceased, while the second to eighth applicants were the children of the applicant and decased. The applicants were all stipulated in the will of the deceased as beneficiaries (ahli waris). The deceased's savings were held with PT. Bank BPD Aceh (IDR 22,133,633), an additional deposit of IDR 6 million having been made on 4 December 1998. When the applicants sought to withdraw the savings of the deceased, however, the bank told them they needed to first obtain a court-issued stipulation declaring that they were indeed the beneficiaries under the deceased's will. The applicants' request was then dismissed by the court when they failed to attend the proceeding.

A procedural law, containing provisions governing the organization of registry system, the processes of delimitation and registration of real properties, registration of deeds, notary services, administrative enforcement of official deeds, offenses and penalties and the service fees. It, nonetheless, includes one important modification in substantive contract law as well, which is one of the first socially-motivated deviations from the system of ‘freedom of contracts’ as conceived in Shi’i fiqh:

Sale had long been used as a fictional guise for the unlawful intention of the parties to make an interest-bearing loan. This gave the buyer/borrower the additional advantage of appropriating the item of sale/collateral in case of seller/lender’s default, even if the value of collateral be much higher than the price/ loan sum. The Registry Act changed this situation: Regardless of the title the parties give to their contract, whenever the real function of the transaction is to provide security for a debt, the creditor can take only a portion of the collateral equal to the value of the debt, and needs to do this always through judicial or administrative enforcement procedure.

The plaintiffs submitted that they had entered into a shari'a credit loan agreement with the first defendant for IDR 2 billion, leveraging six properties in their names as a shari'a credit guarantee. The plaintiffs maintained that they had met their financial repayment obligations to the first defendant, and had always acted in good faith towards the first defendant. The plaintiffs referred to this good faith because they sought to novate the terms of the shari'a credit loan agreement through the Magelang Religious Court, and were concerned that the first defendant would auction the properties, or several thereof, in response, without first going through the court. Indeed, the plaintiffs submitted, the first defendant, through the second defendant, had unilaterally auctioned the plaintiffs' properties, contrary to law, justice and humanity, especially in terms of the shari'a economy. Moreover, that in order for the conduct of the first and second defendant to be legal, they first needed to obtain the recommendation of the interested co-defendant. The plaintiffs submitted that as the first and second defendant had failed to do so, they should be ordered to pay to the plaintiffs IDR 7 million per day for every day they failed to carry out the orders of the Mageland Religious Court. The novation of terms of a contract, the plaintiffs submitted, was regulated in art 180 of the Herziene Inlandsch/Indonesisch Reglement (HIR).

The defendants submitted that a clause in the original agreement stated that any dispute arising would be settled before the National Shari'a Arbitration Body (Badan Arbitrase Syariah Nasional), pursuant to art 59(1) of Law No. 48 of 2009 on Judicial Authority, and arts 2 and (4)(1) and (2) of Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution. The court noted that, pursuant to art 49(i) of Law No. 3 of 2006 on the Religious Judiciary, and art 55(1) and (2) of Law No. 21 of 2008 on Shari'a Banking, the religious courts have the absolute competence to resolve shari'a banking disputes, provided the agreement in dispute does not specify otherwise. As the parties had specified otherwise, the court found that art 1338(1) of the Civil Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata), which states that all contractual agreements are to be treated as statutes for the parties that make them, applied. In shari'a law, the court stated, this concept in muamalah (commercial and civil law) is known as asas al-sufiah, al-muamalah al-ibahah. Accordingly, the court found that it was precluded from adjudicating the dispute.

This Supreme Court jurisprudence pertains to inheritance law. It states that a dispute over the estate of a deceased person between beneficiaries (ahli waris) with a familial connection to the deceased cannot also include an ownership dispute, and, when strengthened by information provided by witnesses, must be dismissed.

This Supreme Court jurisprudence states that if a person submits to having rights over land based on a gift (hibah), that person must be able to establish ownership based on that gift, as specified in art 210(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Moreover, if the land is obtained based on a gift, then the land needs to be placed in the recipient's name immediately. If this does not happen and a dispute subsequently arises, the status of the land remains as is, unless a change of ownership can be established.

This Supreme Court jurisprudence states that:

1. Law No. 20 of 1947 regulates judicial appeals, and, therefore, cannot be applied to the drafting of a submission in the first instance; and
2. before applying art 210(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the plaintiff must first articulate the property it is claiming as a gift (hibah) in order that the court can ascertain whether or not that gift exceeds the one-third limit placed on parties who choose to make a gift of their own property.

This Supreme Court jurisprudence states that a deed of distribution, per art 107 of Law No. 7 of 1989 as amended by Law No. 3 of 2006, must include all beneficiaries. If it does not, the deed can be impugned before a court and declared null and void.

The parties (except the third defendant) were siblings and beneficiaries under their deceased parent's will. The estate of the deceased comprised a 1093m² property, which had become the subject of a dispute between the parties. The plaintiffs submitted that, on 17 December 2013, the first and second defendants, unbeknownst to the plaintiffs, leveraged the property to obtain a murabahah financing agreement from the third defendant (a shari'a bank) for IDR 170 million. Moreover, the plaintiffs submitted that the third defendant, as a shari'a bank, had already contravened the principle of prudence, because the third defendant entered into the agreement without the approval of the plaintiffs.

The third defendant, however, submitted that, as it had not entered into contractual relations with the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs had no grounds on which to issue proceedings against it. The court acceded to the third defendant's objection and, therefore, dismissed the plaintiffs' application.

The plaintiff submitted that, on 5 February 2011, a cooperative agreement had been executed between the plaintiff and the company CV. Barito Putera Mandiri (the company), represented by the first defendant as its administrator. The agreement financed the purchase of motorcycles and, in principle, regulated the relationship of the plaintiff as creditor of customers seeking to purchase motorcycles, and the company as the retail provider of those motorcycles. For a year, pursuant to a financing request submitted by the company, represented by the first defendant, the plaintiff had already approved the murabahah financing for the purchase of 136 motorcycles for its customers, for a total of IDR 1,738,165,000.

Initially, the financing of these motorcycles had gone smoothly, the company successfully executing its obligation to transfer proof of owernship to every customer. This was not the case for the 15th-136th customers, however, as the company, acting in bad faith, had only provided the customers with photocopies of their proof of ownership. It subsequently became known that the defendants, through the company, had already collected financial instalment repayments from the customers, but had not deposited those instalments with the plaintiff, contrary to art 6(8) of the murabahah agreement. Even after employees of the plaintiff contacted the customers who had obtained financial facilities from the plaintiff through the first defendant, the customers continued to transfer their money to the defendants because they had received proof of ownership of their motorcycles.

On numerous occasions, the plaintiff requested, orally, and in writing on 11 May 2012, that the defendants adhere to the murabahah agreement and fulfil their obligations pursuant to art 6(4) thereof. Since 5 February 2011, the first defendant had only deposited IDR 433,165,000 from a total of IDR 1,738,165,000 with the plaintiff, was therefore in contravention of art 6(4) and (8) of the agreement, and had incurred a loss of IDR 1,305,000,000. In order to rectify the cessation of payments, the plaintiff had sent a letter to the defendants, through the company, which was responded to by the first defendant as director of the company on 29 February 2012. Principally, the first defendant's response stated that the company was responsible for all financial payment instalments from the customers until customers had repaid their debts entirely. When this commitment was not met, the plaintiff sent another letter of confirmation and clarification to the defendants, dated 11 May 2012, which received a response confirming the transfer of all customer financing.

The parties agreed to draft six murabahah agreements for the purchase of motorcycles, valued at IDR 1,305,000,000, operating as a transfer of the financial customer agreements for the purpose of repaying the remainder of the arrears from the 136 motorcycles from the company. Each defendant executed one of the new murabahah agreements. These new agreements were executed assuming that, until May 2012, the motorcycle financing would be reduced by one year from three years, meaning that the 136 motorcycles, in principle, belonged to the plaintiff, making the conversion of the sale agreements from the plaintiff to the defendants lawful. Despite new agreements and reminder notices from the plaintiff, the defendants continued to default on their repayment obligations.

Initially, the plaintiff requested that the Court order the defendants to pay damages for failure to meet their contractual obligations, and to declare lawful the plaintiff's seizure of collateral properties and vehicles leveraged by the defendants. After receiving counsel from the Court, however, the plaintiff chose to withdraw its application. The defendants were absent from court, while the plaintiff was ordered to pay court costs (IDR 701,000).