Judgment No. SC 47/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 695/15 of a particular person and that the identification of second appellant on the subpoena was vexatious and unduly burdensome. 4. The court a quo erred in failing to come to the conclusion that the impugned subpoena was far too generalized and speculative being in essence a trawling exercise in search of unknown evidence. 5. Regard being had to the circumstances under which it was taken, the court a quo erred in not concluding that the subpoena duces tecum was a retaliatory measure and is on consideration of that circumstance an abuse of court process and is in breach of appellant’s right to the protection of the law. At the initial hearing of the appeal, the first respondent moved a preliminary point advanced in its heads of argument to the effect that the appeal was not properly before us on the grounds that the judgment in the court a guo was interlocutory. To that end it had been argued that the appellants should have sought and obtained leave of the High Court before noting the appeal. In a judgment by PATEL JA (with which Hlatshwayo JA and I concurred), the preliminary point was dismissed with costs and the court ordered that the appeal proceed on the merits. When the appeal hearing resumed on 10 July 2017 at the commencement of the hearing, the court intimated to the parties that the second appellant was allegedly discharged from the first appellant’s employ and inquired from Miss Mahere who appeared for the first respondent whether that had a bearing on the present matter. Miss Mahere submitted that the second appellant