SHARIAsource

The appellant sought to challenge Decision 196 of 2015 of the Pekalongan Religious Court. The appeal was dismissed, however, on the grounds that the appellant's application was still unclear. Specifically, the application had failed to explain:

1. how the appellant owned the properties;
2. what the relationship was between the appellant and third respondent, which affected the claim that the third respondent had threatened to auction the properties;
3. whether the appellant or co-respondent (or someone else) had received a financial loan from the third defendant;
4. what form the agreement took (i.e. what was the financial sum of the loan, and on what date was the agreement executed?);
5. what the collateral subject of the loan was;
6. if the appellant had agreed to the properties becoming collateral; and
7. whether the plaintiff or another party that had received the financial loan from the third respondent had defaulted on the loan.