1. ) Assuntha A/P Letchmanan v Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (WA-22NCvC-363-05/2021)

3.1 After considering all-cause papers, written and oral submissions of the respective counsels, I find there was no merit in the application. 40 3.2 Accordingly, I dismissed it with costs of RM3,000.00 to be paid within 30 days from the date of this Order.

3.3 Dissatisfied, the plaintiffs filed this appeal, and my reasons are as follows: 45 BRIEF FACTS [4] This suit is pending substantive trial at this Court.

4.1 The brief facts gathered from the cause papers (without going to the merits of this suit), are as follows:

4.2 The Ps were licensed static roadside peddlers from roadside stalls 50 along Jalan Tun Sambanthan 3, Brickfields, Kuala Lumpur (Penjaja Statik-Tetap, Jenis Lesen: Gerai Tepi Jalan), that had been operating as early as 1984, subject to an annual license fee according to size, payable to the defendant (DBKL).

4.3 The Ps claimed that sometime on 29.09.2020, the Ps, by letter, were 55 invited to attend an engagement session on 05.10.2020, for a proposed development on Lot P.T. 26, Section 55, Jalan Tun Sambanthan, Brickfields, Kuala Lumpur, WP for the Railway Assets Corporation 4.4 This was followed by a 2nd engagement session on 09.02.2021 60 online with the YTL representative and the DBKL officers, attended by the Ps and others.

4.5 This was again followed by a 3rd engagement session on 17.03.2021 at Menara DBKL, where the officers of DBKL had informed the Ps and others attending that: 65

4.5.1 Arah Asas Sdn Bhd (YTL-Land), the registered proprietor of Lot P.T. 25, together with the Railway Assets Corporation, the registered proprietor of the adjacent Lot P.T. 26, in a Joint Venture Agreement, proposed to construct the development 70 known as Menara RAC Sentral on Lot P.T. 26, Jalan Tun Sambanthan, Brickfields, Kuala Lumpur.

4.5.2 DBKL approved the said development project; and 75 4.5.3 Arah Asas Sdn Bhd and Railway Assets Corporation will not offer any compensation or financial assistance to the static roadside peddlers along Jalan Tun Sambanthan 3.

4.5.4 The Ps suggested that Arah Asas Sdn Bhd and Railway 80 Assets Corporation development access should remain on Jalan Utama Tun Sambanthan (main road) or Jalan Padang Belia in the vicinity of Lot P.T. 25 near the YMCA, Brickfields. But this verbal suggestion was denied. 85 [5] The Ps claimed that in planning and granting the said approval:

5.1 DBKL failed to consider the adverse impact it has on the welfare of the Ps and other roadside static peddlers and all the rain trees (Samena Saman) along Jalan Tun Sambanthan 3, Brickfields, Kuala Lumpur; 90 5.1.1 The Ps alleged that DBKL had acted mala fide in the approval process of the project site, adversely impacting the livelihood of the static roadside peddlers and the rain trees along the said Jalan Tun Sambanthan 3.

5.1.2 During the engagement session, DBKL informed the Ps and 95 others that the roadside stalls and the rain trees (that will be felled) obstruct the development site of P.T. 25 and P.T. 26.

5.1.3 All these obstructions will be removed to facilitate access to the development site.

5.1.4 Since January 2021, DBKL has not renewed the licenses for 100 the static roadside peddlers for P1-P5.

5.1.5 On 05.04.2021, the Ps were served with Notices to Vacate the stalls/site along Jalan Tun Sambanthan 3 in less than one month, latest by 02.04.2021.

5.1.6 The Ps written application for an extension to DBKL was not 105 responded to; and 5.1.7 The Ps pleaded that it is only fair that some compensation is given by Arah Asas Sdn Bhd and Railway Assets Corporation, which would benefit from the Ps vacating the roadside stalls sites. 110 [6] The Ps alleged that DBKL had acted arbitrarily and without due regard to the law.

6.1 The Ps pleaded that DBKL:

6.1.1 Failed to protect the rain trees (Samena Saman) along Jalan Tun Sambanthan 3 (s.31(1) and s.35 Akta (Perancangan) 115 Wilayah Persekutuan 1982).

6.1.2 Failed to renew the Ps licenses without cause.

6.1.3 Wrongful issuance of Notices to Vacate when DBKL has no such power.

6.1.4 Forcing the Ps to vacate the roadside stalls/site. 120 6.1.5 Failed to provide a new roadside stall site before issuing the Notices to Vacate.

6.1.6 Failed to consider the interest and welfare of the Ps that had paid for their business licenses.

6.1.7 In the circumstances the Ps seek from the Court:

A declaration that the Notices to Vacate by DBKL is unlawful and void.

That all the rain trees along Jalan Tun Sambanthan 3 are preserved.

The status quo of the roadside stalls along Jalan Tun Sambanthan 130 3 is maintained, and licenses are renewed.

Alternatively, the roadside stall site that's parallel to Lot P.T. 26, Section 55, Jalan Tun Sanbantham, Brickfields, is relocated with compensation as shall be determined by the Court.

DBKL is to prepare a new roadside stall site in Brickfields.

Relocated roadside stalls are given till the end of 2022 to vacate.

Relocated roadside stalls are exempted from business premises license fees for two years.

6.2 Via enclosure 79, an injunction is sought to restrain DBKL from 140 demolishing the roadside stalls and the felling of the rain trees along Jalan Tun Sambanthan 3, pending the determination of this suit. [7] DBKL, in its defence, asserted that:

7.1 DBKL had, in the first engagement session (05.10.2020), briefed the 145 Ps and others affected by the project, to be ready to move from the present site. The Ps or their representatives were only concerned with DBKL providing a new business location and compensation from Railway Assets Corporation.

7.2 During the second engagement session: 150 7.2.1 The Ps and others were informed that Railway Assets Corporation would not be offering compensation but is prepared to provide those affected, including the Ps, to take up units in the food court premise once the RAC project is completed. 155 7.2.2 The contractor notified the Ps and others for the Railway Assets Corporation that Jalan Tun Sambanthan 3 would be used for TNB, SYABAS and Suruhanjaya Tenaga Malaysia to provide utility services.

7.2.3 It would also be used as the access for BOMBA in the project 160 to commence in May 2021, with targeted completion by the end of 2022.

7.2.4 Food court units will be available on the 9th floor once the project is completed.

7.2.5 DBKL had requested RAC to make available units in the food 165 court premise for the roadside peddlers and the Ps for relocation.

7.2.6 DBKL, in the meanwhile, had made available empty lots at the Pusat Penjaja Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur for all affected, including the Ps, though DBKL does not need to.

7.3 During the third engagement session held on 19.03.2021, it was resolved by a letter (26.02.2021) from the Jawatankuasa Tindakan Gerai-Gerai DBKL, Jalan Tun Sambanthan 3 that all affected had accepted the relocation site, including the Ps. The Ps solicitor 175 disagreed with the said letter and left the session:

7.3.1 DBKL notified the affected hawkers, including the Ps, that there would be a six-month waiver of rental for those who agree to relocate to the proposed hawker centre.

7.3.2 That administrative notices with the requisite form will be 180 issued to all, including the Ps, to license them at the relocated site.

7.3.3 By letter dated 26.2.2021 from the Jawatankuasa Tindakan Gerai-Gerai DBKL, Jalan Tun Sambanthan 3, the Ps had agreed to be relocated as follows: 185

7.3.4 These static roadside peddlers or hawkers do not have the legal right to obstruct the approved RAC project involving the two plots of land (P.T. 25 & 26) of the private landowners, and neither can they compel the private landowners to 195 compensate them for relocating.

7.4 The approval for the licensing of the static roadside stall peddlers by DBKL was always subject to express conditions on the license that was made known to them:

7.4.1 If the site is involved in a development/re-planning, DBKL can 200 revoke the license given, in which case the Ps must look for a new location.

7.4.2 The Ps cannot alter the structure of the stall/site given without approval from DBKL.

7.4.3 The Ps, as static roadside stall peddlers, cannot use a 205 permanent structure at the stall site and can only use a canopy that fits the size of the plot granted. It was meant to be temporary.

7.5 In the circumstances: 210 7.5.1 Compensation for the loss of the site does not arise.

7.5.2 The issue of the rain trees (Samena Saman) along Jalan Tun Sambanthan 3 falls within the jurisdiction of DBKL to determine.

7.5.3 renewal of business licenses is not a matter of right. The Ps 215 license cannot be issued if the location impedes the approved development project.

7.5.4 All actions that DBKL takes follow existing laws and regulations.

7.5.5 Sufficient notices had been served on the Ps to vacate the 220 impugned site.

7.5.6 In default, the Ps had refused to vacate the impugned site and continue to conduct their business at the said location. THE PARTIES SUBMISSIONS 225 [8] The parties argued as follows:

8.1 The Ps argued that:

8.1.1 The alleged dispute between the parties deserves an interim injunction to preserve matters in status quo until the case is tried citing Perumahan Farlim (Pg) Sdn Bhd & Ors v Cheng 230 Hang Guan & Ors [1989] 3 MLJ.

8.1.2 Citing Ganad Media Sdn Bhd v DBKL (No.1) [2002] 1 CLJ, HC, DBKL is a Corporation Sole formed under s.5(1) Federal Capital Act 1960 that performs its duties within the confines of existing law. 235 8.1.3 DBKL cannot enjoy the protection and be equated as a Local Government, the Federal Government, or the State Government as named in s.54(d) Specific Relief Act 1950 and s.29 Government Proceedings Act 1956.

8.1.4 DBKL had failed to produce the "Surat Perwakilan Kuasa" in 240 its affidavits, affirming the position of the deponent as representing DBKL, but DBKL negated it in exhibit A-1.

8.1.5 Citing Ganad Media Sdn Bhd v DBKL (supra), the Ps argued that Malaysia had adopted the position that an injunction would only be granted against a local authority or 245 a public authority when the plaintiff can show a real prospect of succeeding in his claim for a permanent injunction at trial.

8.1.6 DBKL, in this suit, had failed to act within the existing laws and regulations. It never negotiated with Lot P.T. 25 and 25 proprietors for reasonable compensation for the static 250 roadside peddlers or hawkers impacted by the relocation.

8.1.7 The Development Order is inconsistent with the defence taken by DBKL, and therefore the Ps has a real prospect of success in this suit.

8.1.8 By demolishing the roadside stalls along Jalan Tun 255 Sambanthan 3 to make way for this proposed private development would adversely impact the lives of the Ps.

8.1.9 The balance of convenience favours the Ps (the B40s), which DBKL continuously victimises. It would not suffer any prejudice by the Court granting this injunction. However, in 260 refusing to injunct, the roadside stalls would be demolished, the rain trees felled, and this suit would be rendered academic, citing Caltex Oil Malaysia Ltd v Tee Than Song [1969] 2 MLJ 184, HC that an injunction ought to be granted to prevent irreparable injury to the applicant.

8.2 DBKL, in response, argued that:

8.2.1 The stand taken by the Ps on the legal position of DBKL is erroneous and inconsistent with the prevailing legislations and authorities:

DBKL is entitled to the protection of s.54(d) Specific Relief Act 1950, that an injunction cannot be granted to interfere with the public duties of any department of any government in Malaysia. Section 29(1)(a), and (2) of the Government Proceedings Act 1956, provides that where 275 in any proceedings against the government, any such relief by way of an injunction or specific performance shall not be granted, but may in lieu thereof make declaratory Order of rights of parties. Any injunctive relief against an officer of the government, the effect of which 280 would be to injunct the government indirectly, would also not be granted.

It is unrefuted that DBKL is a local authority within the meaning of section 2 Local Government Act 1976, where local authority means City Council, Municipal Council or 285 District Council as the case may be, and concerning the Federal Territory means the Commissioner of the City of Kuala Lumpur.

Ganad Media Sdn Bhd v DBKL (No.2) (supra), citing and following Yap Ea Teck v Yang DiPertua Majlis 290 Daerah Kota Tinggi [1995] 1 MLRH 36, affirmed that DBKL is a local authority having conduct of the affairs of Kuala Lumpur within the meaning of section 2 of the Local Government Act 1976.

The Ps has, in its inconsistent stand, acknowledged that 295 DBKL is a local authority (paragraph 18 of their affidavit in support). In the circumstances, there is no denying that DBKL is a department in the Government of Malaysia and is not free from government control. It is a government body (s.9 Federal Territories Act 1960) 300 where an injunction shall not lie. See also Government of Malaysia v Lim Kit Siang & Anor Case [1988] 1 MLRA 179, SC, held that, under section 29 of the Government Proceedings Act, no injunction could be directly or indirectly issued against the government or its 305 officers. In the circumstances, enclosure 79 should be dismissed in liminie as it does not have a leg to stand on. 310 8.2.2 The is obviously an unexplained inordinate delay in the filing of enclosure 79 by the Ps. The law is trite that an application for an injunction must be taken with promptitude: Perak Hydro Renewable Energy Corp Sdn Bhd & Anor v Wak Ngah Pili a/p Bah Adim (suing on behalf of herself and 22 315 individuals from the Senai Tribe) [2022] 6 MLJ 698, CA observed that delay is a relevant factor in proceedings for an injunction. Equity aids the vigilant litigant, not the indolent:

The Ps knew that the rain trees and the roadside stalls along Jalan Tun Sambanthan 3 would eventually be 320 removed/relocated since the first engagement session for the RAC project on 05.10.2020 but elected not to act on it. Enclosure 79 was only pursued approximately 20 months after filing the writ and SoC (10.05.2021).

In the circumstances, the alleged urgency and prejudice 325 in canvassing for enclosure 79 by the Ps are untenable.

Conversely, it had impeded DBKL in discharging its duties and responsibilities in the smooth running of the City of Kuala Lumpur. 330 8.2.3 The Ps failed to meet the essential requirements for the grant of an injunction. The requirement of a serious question to be raised has no relevance to the grant of an interlocutory injunction against a local authority: Ganad Media Sdn Bhd v DBKL (No.2) (supra), citing and following Lord Denning MR 335 in Smith & Ors v Inner London Education Authority [1978] 1 All ER 411 (CA) that without going into detail, local authority should not be restrained, even by an interlocutory injunction. Consequently, it renders enclosure 79 untenable for this proceeding. The defendant asserts that:

The Ps has no sustainable case with a real prospect of success. They have no legitimate legal interest in filing enclosure 79.

The Ps are no longer licensed static roadside peddlers/hawkers by DBKL. In the premise, DBKL is 345 within its rights to remove or take appropriate action against them following the law. In seeking equitable relief, it is evident that they did not come to Court with clean hands.

The nature of the declaratory reliefs the Ps seek is, in 350 essence, injunctive reliefs against a local authority that the law disallows.

The Ps cannot show to the Court that damages in the circumstances of their complaints would not be an adequate remedy. They are merely taking the 355 opportunity to seek compensation for the legitimate relocation exercise by DBKL. It is trite in law that where damages/compensation is an adequate remedy, an injunction will be refused: Associated Tractors Sdn Bhd v Chan Boon Heng & Anor [1990] 2 MLJ 408, HC.

There is no evidence before the Court that the Ps gave their undertaking as to damages as the law requires: Perak Hydro Renewable Energy Corp Sdn Bhd & Anor v Wak Ngah Pili a/p Bah Adim (suing on behalf of herself and 22 individuals from the Senai Tribe) 365 [2022] 6 MLJ 698, CA. It is settled law that the Court will require an undertaking as to damages in granting an injunction.

The balance of convenience must indeed lie in favour of DBKL from the facts of the case. 370 In the circumstances, the plaintiff prays that enclosure 79 is allowed with cost in the cause, while DBKL seeks its dismissal with costs.

8.3 In appraising the parties' respective arguments, it is apparent where 375 the scale of evidence has tilted. By and large, the arguments of the Ps are hardly tenable to support enclosure 79. First and foremost, the position taken by the Ps on the legal status of DBKL is in clear error.

8.4 Secondly, there is no basis or foundation to allege that DBKL had 380 breached any legislative provisions sans any compelling evidence that it is so. At this juncture, the Ps have produced only postulations and conjectures. It is trite that the Court does not act on speculations but only on proven facts.

8.5 The Ps were licensed static roadside peddlers/hawkers, and their 385 rights were confined to the four corners of that license and would not extend beyond what it provides. The terms for the grant of that license must be honoured or observed. The Ps cannot claim interest above and beyond what is given in that license.

8.6 With the expiry of the static roadside peddling license and in the 390 absence of its renewal, it will provide no legitimate basis for the present suit by the Ps. DBKL has not renewed the Ps licenses for legitimate reasons. If they are genuinely aggrieved with DBKL's (local authority) executive decision, then a review must be taken against DBKL's under the appropriate provision of the law as 395 opposed to this proceeding.

8.7 DBKL is within its legislative rights to take appropriate action in the circumstances of the case in upholding its statutory public duty. There is no compelling evidence that DBKL had disregarded the welfare and interest of the Ps, as the evidence before me had shown. 400 8.8 The Ps, of their own volition, elected not to abide by the relocation resolution reached and insisted on continuing their roadside peddling business at the same site unlicensed by DBKL.

8.9 The Ps seem to have forgotten that they do not have any proprietary interest in the roadside stall sites, no matter how long they have 405 occupied them. It was merely a temporary right to occupy granted by DBKL's license on public land. The site is for DBKL to determine, subject to the terms of the license granted.

8.10 DBKL license permits the Ps to use the site for an agreed purpose. It is not proprietary; it is only a right to use that stall site. It does not 410 pass interest nor alter or transfer the site granted.

8.11 In the circumstances of the case, I agree with the arguments of DBKL that the Ps claim is too far-fetched. They have failed to make out their case and to meet their burden of proof to satisfy the Keet Gerald test for the grant of an injunction. 415 THE LAW 420 [9] An interim injunction:

9.1 May be granted if the requirements in Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v Mohd Noor@Harun Bin Abdullah & 2 Ors [1995] 1 MLJ 193, CA, are met.

9.2 The Federal Court in Jaya Sudhir a/l Jayaram v Nautical Supreme 425 Sdn Bhd & 2 Ors [ 2019] 5 MLJ 1; [2019] 7 CLJ 395, FC, held that the applicable test for the grant of interim injunctions is the "Keet Gerald Francis test":

9.2.1 There must be a serious question to be tried:

Applicant must satisfy the Court that there is a serious question to be 430 tried. That is, the claim is not frivolous or vexatious.

The Court is not required to decide on the merits of the claim. Instead, it will consider whether the issues are serious enough to warrant a trial. 435 9.2.2 Damages are not an adequate remedy:

If damages are an adequate remedy and the defendant is financially able to pay such damages, an interim injunction will not be granted, regardless of how strong the plaintiff's claim appears to be.

The onus is on the applicant to establish that damages are not an 440 adequate remedy: Gerak Indera Sdn Bhd v Farlim Properties Sdn Bhd [1997] 4 AMR 4244; [1997] 3 MLJ 90 at 99, CA.

If the Court is in doubt as to the adequacy of damages, it should proceed on the basis that damages are not an adequate remedy and move to consider the balance of convenience: Tenaga Nasional 445 Berhad v Teobros Development Sdn Bhd [2008] MLJU 415, CA.

9.2.3 Balance of convenience lies in favour of the injunction: The test of balance of convenience is that the Court should take whichever course appears to carry the lower risk of injustice: Alor 450 Janggus Soon Seng Trading Sdn Bhd & 6 Ors v Sey Hoe Sdn Bhd & 2 Ors [2003] 1 MLJ 78, CA:

The risk that if the interlocutory injunction is refused and the plaintiff succeeds at trial, the harm, inconvenience, and monetary loss suffered by the plaintiff cannot be adequately compensated by 455 damages; and

The risk that if the interlocutory injunction is granted and the plaintiff later fails at trial, the harm and inconvenience suffered by the Defendant is not compensable: Tenaga Nasional Berhad v Teobros Development Sdn Bhd [2008] MLJU 415, CA.

Public interest has been a relevant consideration in weighing the balance of convenience between the parties.

9.2.4 Applicant can meet undertaking in damages financially:

The Applicant must provide an undertaking as to damages to mitigate 465 the apparent risk of unfairness to the party against whom an injunction is ordered when the issues have not been entirely determined and when usually the merits have not been thoroughly ventilated.

Failure to provide an undertaking or the inability to pay damages could be adverse to the Applicant: Jaks Island Circle Sdn Bhd v Star 470 Media Group Bhd & Anor (and Another Originating Summons) [2019] 6 AMR 638; [2020] 1 CLJ 839 at paras [42]– [45].

Some evidence of the ability to give effect to an undertaking as to damages should be included when the financial ability is challenged: 475 Asia General Equipment and Supplies Sdn Bhd & 6 Ors v Mohd Sari bin Datuk OKK Hj Nuar & 3 Ors [1998] AMEJ 0027; [1998] MLJU 423; [1998] 1 LNS 5, HC; Yukilon Manufacturing Sdn Bhd & Anor v Dato' Wong Gek Meng & Ors (No. 4)[1998] 7 MLJ 551.

The inability of the plaintiff to give a viable undertaking as to damages 480 is not a determining factor in refusing an injunction.

In a case where the injustice to the plaintiff is so manifest, the Court may dispense with the usual undertaking as to damages: Dunggon Jaya Sdn Bhd v Aeropod Sdn Bhd & Anor (and Another Appeal) [2019] 3 AMR 729; [2019] 4 MLJ 466; [2019] 9 CLJ 734 at 485 para [36], CA.

9.2.5 Other factors to consider:

In seeking an ex-parte relief, the applicant must make full and frank disclosure of material facts for the Court's exercise of its discretion: 490 Noor Jahan bt. Wahab v Md Yusoff b Amanshah [1994] 1 MLJ 156, HC, citing and following Sir Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson VC in Dormeuil Feres SA & Anor v Nocolian International (Textiles) Ltd [1988] 2 All ER 197.

There must be no inordinate delay in applying for an injunction: Haji 495 Wan Habib v Datuk Patinggi Haji Abdul Taib Mahmud [1986] 2 MLJ 198, SC. The Court will only assist the vigilant and not an indolent litigant. FINDINGS [10] Considering the cause papers, the parties' respective arguments 500 and my earlier determinations, on the balance of probabilities I find the scale of evidence tilted in DBKL's favour. And in addition to, it is also my considered view that:

10.1 DBKL, being a local authority, it is trite law that an injunction cannot 505 lie against DBKL in the circumstances of the present case. Section 29 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 provides that there can be no injunction or Order for specific performance granted against the government. Further, section 54 of the Specific Relief Act 1950 (Revised 1974) provides that an injunction may not be 510 granted in cases where it would interfere with the public duties of any department of the Government of Malaysia or with the sovereign acts of a foreign government.

2 Though it was observed by the Federal Court in Minister of 515 Finance, Government of Sabah v Petrojasa Sdn Bhd [2008] 5 CLJ 321, FC that "the courts have moved away from the traditional stand that no order of injunction may be granted against the government", the Court of Appeal in Superintendent of Lands and Surveys, Kuching Division & 3 Ors v Kuching Waterfront 520 Development Sdn Bhd [2009] 6 CLJ 751, CA elected to distinguish these cases and held that section 29 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 did not permit the granting of any injunction against the government. [11] That said, for completeness, it is also my finding that:

1 The bare arguments produced by the Ps failed to meet the Keet Gerald Francis test for the grant of interim injunctions.

11.2 In coming to this conclusion, I find that the Ps:

11.2.1 Failed to make out a serious, bona fide and legitimate question to be tried. The Ps did not come with clean hands. 530 They are trying to assert rights of which they obviously do not have.

11.2.2 From the facts, no circumstances show that damages or compensation is not an adequate remedy. It is also trite that it is only in the event of doubt as to the adequacy of 535 damages would the Court take the position that damages will be inadequate: Tenaga Nasional Berhad v Teobros

Development Sdn Bhd [2008] MLJU 415, CA

2.3 The balance of convenience lies with DBKL.

11.2.4 I also take cognisance that the Ps failed to provide any 540 undertaking for damages in enclosure 79. That said, it is my finding that the Ps are in no position to financially meet any undertaking in damages vis-à-vis the RAC development project legitimately approved by the authorities. Though it is trite that this factor is not a determining factor in cases of 545 public interest or where the justice of the case demands it, however, the present case does not qualify for that: Dunggon Jaya Sdn Bhd v Aeropod Sdn Bhd & Anor (and Another Appeal) [2019] 3 AMR 729; [2019] 4 MLJ 466; [2019] 9 CLJ 734 at para [36], CA.

11.2.5 The Ps had also failed to explain the inordinate delay in filing enclosure 79. It is settled law that the Court will not aid the indolent litigant. 555 [12] The Ps who appears to be aggrieved with DBKL's refusal to renew their static roadside peddling license ought to mount a review of the decision of DBKL (local authority) under the appropriate provisions of the law and not in the present suit. Therefore, when a wrong mode is used, 560 the Court may strike it off for abuse of process. CONCLUSION [13] Considering the facts, all-cause papers, and written and oral arguments of respective counsels, I find that enclosure 79 for an injunction 565 by the plaintiff had failed the Keet Gerald Francis test. Consequently, I dismissed enclosure 79 with costs of RM3,000.00 to be paid within 30 days from the date of this Order. Dated 24.05.2023. 570 HAYATUL AKMAL ABDUL AZIZ JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR 575 Counsels: Mr Avirom Namasivaya Messrs Avirom & Co. 580 Counsel for the Plaintiffs Ms Fauzana Abdul Kari, together with Ms Fatin Nur Nadhirah