Judgment No. SC 47/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 695/15 This fortifies the position taken by the appellants that a subpoena duces tecum could not demand the production of documents as well as compelling the attendance of a witness to give oral testimony on the documents being sought to be produced. I must agree. The court a guo made a finding that the second appellant was a competent and compellable witness and could testify on the pertinent issues found in the subpoenaed documents. Whilst the appellants have not challenged this finding, which in any event they could not, such finding does not, however, sanction the summoning of the second appellant to give oral testimony on the basis of a subpoena duces tecum. The impugned subpoena was issued by the court a quo following an application by the first respondent in terms of s 6 of the Act, which provides as follows: 6 Summoning and privileges of witnesses (1) The Court shall have power to summon witnesses, to call for the production of and grant inspection of | books and documents and to examine witnesses on oath. (2) A subpoena for the attendance of witnesses or the production of books or documents shall be signed by the registrar of the Court and served in the same manner as if it were a subpoena for the attendance of a witness at a civil trial in a magistrates court. (3) Any person subpoenaed to give evidence or to produce any book or document or giving evidence before the Court shall be entitled to the same privileges and immunities as if he were subpoenaed to attend or were giving evidence at a trial in the High Court. Although in Poli v Minister of Finance and Economic Development (supra) the learned Chief Justice sought reliance from an American authority on this issue, it is a principle of our law