That is: a) The restriction on the right must be prescribed by law. b) The restriction on the right must pursue a legitimate aim and, c) The restriction must be necessary and proportionate to achieve that legitimate aim [necessary in a democratic society]. Although this point is superfluous as we have concluded that there was no proof of Clubhouse restrictions in Tanzania, we briefly note that the access to Clubhouse is not absolute. It can be restricted provided the above three-step test is observed. That is also the position in the cases of Raymond Paul Kanegene (supra) and Julius Ishengoma Ndyanabo (supra). Finally, after addressing all the issues in controversy we come to the reliefs sought. The Petitioner prays that he be granted the reliefs as contained in the petition. The Respondents on their part have asked the court to dismiss the petition for lacking merit. For the reasons stated herein above the petition is unsuccessful despite some issues being answered in the affirmative. The key finding drawn is that the alleged restrictions of the Clubhouse in Tanzania lack evidence. For that sole reason and analysis given herein above the petition at hand fails. We thus proceed to dismiss it and order as follows: a) For declaration that the Petitioner has the fundamental right tounrestricted access in the social audio platform Clubhouse in terms of Article 18[1]; 18[2]; 20[1]; 26[1]; 29[1] and 29[5] of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania. We concluded that the petitioner has the right to access the Clubhouse with the limits set by the law. It is not a right or freedom without restrictions. But such restrictions if any must comply with Article 30(2) of the CURT. Overall, we partly declare that the petitioner has a fundamental right of access to the Clubhouse. However, that right is not absolute or unrestricted. Besides, there was no proof of restriction of access to the Clubhouse platform 27