Inconsistency at its glory

What happened in court last week was shocking! My confidence level on the Syariah judicial system nose dived and I began to seriously doubt its ability to deliver justice.

Last week was the "tarikh keputusan" or decision date on my ex-wife's husband's application to extend his injunction against me, my mum and his 2nd ex-wife.

As mentioned in my previous post, my previous injunction against him was set aside on grounds that

1. my previous injunction against him was only valid for 30 days; and
2. he is not a party to my child custody proceedings

In our reply to his application for extension, we argued that

1. there are material inconsistencies as to the validity period of his injunction. One clause in the injunction states that it is valid until his child custody proceedings are concluded, whilst another clause in the same injunction states that it is valid unless the courts issue an order stating otherwise. So which clause is to be used? Further to that, the application for extension also puts to question the validity of the two inconsistent clauses.
2. my mum and I are not parties to the child custody proceedings.

However, in making his decision the Honourable Judge stated that

1. my ex-wife's husband's application to extend the injunction was merely a precautionary measure and does not cast doubt as to the validity period of the injunction. It is therefore valid until his child custody proceedings are concluded; and
2. it is not clear that my mum and I are not parties to his child custody proceedings.

Is the Honourable Judge saying that my mum and I are parties to his child custody proceedings??? Pardon my language but is it a joke?

First of all, why on earth would I want to claim custody over HIS children? Secondly, even if we wanted to, where does it say in the Enakmen Undang Undang Keluarga Islam (Negeri Selangor) 2003 that my mum and I have rights to claim custody over his children? Finally, how is it that my mum and I are parties to his child custody proceedings when our names don't appear as parties in the case and no interveners have ever been filed. How is that NOT clear? How much clearer can it get?

How can the same judge make two contradictory decisions? How can justice be served if the courts are inconsistent with their decisions? All those hard earned monies spent on legal costs goes to nothing???