THE CLAIM WAS UNCLEAR BECAUSE THE PETITUM WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY A CLEAR FACTUAL GROUND (POSITA)

Petitum/claim in a civil lawsuit must be based on and supported by the positum/arguments clearly described in the claim so that it appears that there is a connection between the claim and the posita of the claim (fundamental petendi). If this relationship does not exist, then the claim is unclear and obscure or obscuur libel, so a claim of such quality, juridically (based on civil procedural law), must be declared “inadmissible” by the Judge, Judex facti.

In the case of this claim, it turns out that petitum no. 6, which demands monetary compensation due to the loss of profits to be obtained, is not supported by the claim no. 5, which states that “The intent of this claim is about “Unlawful Acts” committed by the Defendants and Co-Defendant. Here, it appears that there is no relationship between the posita and the petitum of the claim, so the claim becomes blurred and unclear.

Supreme Court Decision No. 720. K/Pdt. 1997, 9 March 1999.

Source: Varia Peradilan No. 190, July 2001, pages 59 and 60.

Best regards,

Fredrik J. Pinakunary