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 former employees and argued that they Application without giving genuine reasons. by Karata Ernest and the other had simply They, withdrawn however, from the requested that the title of the Application be changed to “Frank David Omary and Others v. The United sought Republic a change of Tanzania’, of name especially as the Respondent to replace “Attorney General” had also 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 Applicant and the title of the Application. between the identity of the 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’. notes that Rule 40 does set a condition with regard Applicants but it does not apply to the title of an Application. to the The Court identity of