We agree with Mr. Mpoki that the right enshrined under Article 13 (6) (a) of the Constitution is unchallenged as never disputed by the State Attorney. However, analysing his argument that this right was violated, we have directed ourselves to the facts given in the pleadings and failed to see any fact therein proving that the UHURU media was not accorded with the said right before the suspension of the Article so to violates Article 13(6)(a) of the Constitution. Besides, the learned State Attorney clarified that when Media service providers violate the terms of the licence, they are given the right to be heard and state their case before licence is cancelled by the Director. Therefore, as the law requires that the one who alleges must prove as held in several authorities such as that of Barelia Karangirangi vs Asteria Nyalwambwa, Civil Appeal No. 237 of 2017. The Court of Appeal at page 7,8,9,10 and 11 it was held that; " The burden o f proof in a suit lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side". Also, the case of Paulina Samson Ndawavya vs Theresia Thomas Madaha, Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2017. Which one of its held was that, 24