Key Points: - Plaintiff (No 47 Jalan PJU 3/12F) sued defendant (No 26 Jalan PJU 3/12E) over illegal wall construction on retaining wall, seeking demolition, repairs, and damages (!) (!) (!) (!) - Defendant admitted constructing the structure without MBPJ permit, constituting an admission under s 18(1) Evidence Act (!) (!) (!) - Court held burden of proof lies on asserting party per s 101 Evidence Act; plaintiff established prima facie illegality via admission (!) (!) - Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 (s 70) vests local authorities like MBPJ with exclusive power to approve buildings, issue orders, and enforce against illegal structures (!) (!) (!) - Court declined to order demolition as MBPJ not joined as party, violating natural justice; claims on illegality premature without local authority involvement (!) (!) (!) - Trespass proven by defendant's admission of workers entering plaintiff's property and using awning for scaffolding (!) (!) (!) - Plaintiff awarded RM50,000 general damages for trespass, order for defendant to repair awning, interest at 5%, each bears own costs; other claims dismissed (!) (!) (!) - Court exercised inherent powers under O 92 r 4 ROC to prevent abuse of process by not usurping MBPJ's statutory functions (!) (!)

What is the burden of proof under Section 101 of the Evidence Act 1950? [p_22]

Whether the renovation and construction of the wall on top of the existing retaining wall is illegal, lacking approval from MBPJ? [p_29][p_37]

Whether the local authority must be involved in court proceedings regarding illegal constructions? [p_70][p_71]