[18] In this appeal, it was the appellants' contention that the High Court fell into error by deciding the matter independent of pleadings, in the absence of evidence, independent of evidence actually led and independent of submissions actually made which required appellate intervention. It was submitted that the High Court failed to appreciate the fact that the unipole advertisement structure was rightfully erected by the appellants at the approved location by KKRM and MBSA ie at KM 6.5, FT 190, Jalan Bukit Kemuning. This appeal centered on the finding of facts by the learned trial judge.

[19] It is settled law that the burden of proof rests throughout the trial on the party who asserts that the facts exist (s 101 of the Evidence Act 1950 ). Where a party on whom the burden of proof lay had discharged that burden, then the evidential burden shifted to the other party. But if the party on whom the burden of proof lay failed to discharg