demeanour, the Petitioner claims that one can easily look at the evidence of Dr Philip Haule Filikunjombe and notice that he had the propensity of not telling the truth. He went on attacking the testimony of the witness that he had deliberately lied through paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit that the government of Tanzania does not have a specific page in Clubhouse. Here we think the learned advocate is drawing the issue out of proportion. What Dr Filikunjombe averred in paragraph 4 of his counter affidavit is that the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania has official communication platforms with the public for which the Clubhouse is not one of them. We have discussed at length herein above the issue of whether Clubhouse is an official Government Communication platform or not. We will not repeat it here. We are compelled to reiterate that the government of Tanzania indeed uses the Clubhouse to communicate with the public. But it is inconclusive that the same is an official communication channel. Thus, we cannot conclude that Dr Philip Haule Filikunjombe lied on oath. Following his attack on paragraph 4 of Dr Filikunjombe's counter affidavit that he has lied to the court the Petitioner prayed that the testimony of such witness be either disregarded or accorded less weight. The Respondents have contested such an allegation calling it an afterthought. This court found that the Government of Tanzania uses the Clubhouse. Moreover, such use is, arguably, not an official communication as it has not been formally sanctioned by the law. But as to the allegation of perjury that otherwise makes the affidavit defective, this was not raised before the court, it is a statement from the bar. However, it is appreciated that the Petitioner's counsel referred to several cases to persuade the Court to disregard Dr Filikunjombe's testimony. It is imperative though to emphasise here that the Petitioner never sought leave of the court to summon Dr Filikunjombe to appear for cross examination. The regrets registered by the Petitioner cannot now be acted upon as they constitute an afterthought. Moreover, the demeanour of the witness is the monopoly of the trial court as held in Ami Tanzania 17