Limited v. Prosper Joseph Masele, Civil Appeal No. 159 of 2020 [2021] TZCA 668 (11 November 2021) on page 10. It is not for the parties but for the court do so, to access and draw conclusions on such a demeanour. At this juncture we should state that the authorities cited by the Petitioner's counsel on the consequences of an affidavit containing lies are appreciated. These cases are Court of Appeal of Tanzania decisions such as Damas Assesy & Another v. Raymond Mgonda Paula & Others [2019] TZCA 648, Jaliya Felix Rutaihwa v. Kalokora Bwesha & Another [2021] TZCA 62 and Bashir Ally v. Anyegile Andendekisye Mwamaluka & Others [2024] TZCA 47. But they are hardly a consolation because we have been unable to conclude that Dr Filikunjombe lied in his counter affidavit. Regarding the question of burden of proof on the alleged existing restriction of access to Clubhouse, this too is worth scrutiny. It is the law under Section 110 of the Evidence Act [Cap 6 R.E. 2019] that the burden of proof lies on a party fronting the allegation. For that matter the Petitioner in this case had a duty to prove the allegations contained in the petition. On standard of proof, it is now a crystallized legal position that in constitutional petitions like the present, the standard of proof is on a balance of probability as held by the Court of Appeal of Tanzania in Attorney General v. Dickson Paulo Sanga [2020] 1 TLR 61. The same was recently reiterated by this court in its decision in the case of Joran Lwehabura Bashange v. Minister for Constitutional & Legal Affairs & Another [2024] TZHC 774. From that settled position of the law, it is crystal that the burden of proof that there are restrictions introduced by the 2nd Respondent in accessing Clubhouse rested on the Petitioner.The Petitioner contended in vain that he has been able to discharge this burden, first, by demonstrating that he personally suffers these restrictions, and secondly by pinpointing that there exists no other explanation for lacking access of Clubhouse since once VPNs are deployed and used, Clubhouse immediately becomes available. This was never demonstrated to court rather it was the averment of the Petitioner. 18