4. In like manner, the Respondent filed preliminary observations, dated 29
January 2013, in which it requested the Court to declare the Application, titled
"Karata Ernest and Others v. the United Republic of Tanzania", inadmissible
for failing to comply with Rule 40 of the Rules of Court. They maintain that the
said Rule had been violated because the Application was signed by persons
other than Karata Ernest and others mentioned in the said Application.
5. In their reply to the Respondent's response, dated 9 April 2013, the Applicants
expressed surprise at the statements made by Karata Ernest and the other
former employees and argued that they had simply withdrawn from the
Application without giving genuine reasons. They, however, requested that
the title of the Application be changed to "Frank David Omary and Others v.
The United Republic of Tanzania", especially as the Respondent had also
sought a change of name to replace "Attorney General" with the "United
Republic of Tanzania".
Position of the Court
6. The issue at hand is whether the Court can amend the title of an Application
brought before it by substituting the name of a person who was erroneously
made a party with the name of a proper party, before proceeding with the
case.
7. In the circumstances, the Court distinguishes between the identity of the
Applicant and the title of the Application.
Rule 40 of the Rules of Court
provides that for an Application to be considered, it must "disclose the identity
of the Applicant notwithstanding the latter's request for anonymity". The Court
notes that Rule 40 does set a condition with regard to the identity of
Applicants but it does not apply to the title of an Application.
3