Judgment No. SC 47/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 695/15 public interest in the maintenance to place on a litigant any harsh or purpose of securing that justice is degree of publicity being given to of the price of achieving justice.” of confidentiality. But the process should not be allowed more oppressive burden than is strictly required for the done. In so far as that must necessarily involve a certain private documents, the result has to be accepted as part This case buttresses the point that invasion of privacy when permissible should be rational and should not unnecessarily place a harsh and oppressive burden on the party whose right is infringed. When the first appellant’s right to privacy is weighed against the other rights that accrue to the first respondent, it is clear, in the circumstances of this case, that the first appellant’s right to privacy must prevail. Unless justification has been clearly established for such, no person or litigant should have their private information indiscriminately summoned to court even for the purpose of protecting other rights. In the event, the subpoena should not have been upheld, primarily on three grounds. Firstly, that it was wrongly taken by requesting second appellant to personally attend at court and testify orally on the documents. Secondly, the subpoena was clearly a fishing exercise and lastly that it constituted an unwarranted invasion of first appellant’s privacy on the part of the first respondent. Thus, the court a quo should have set aside the subpoena duces tecum. On the question of costs, the ordinary rule is that costs follow the outcome. Given the abuse of the court’s process which has been highlighted above, it is proper that an order of costs on the higher scale be imposed to mark the court’s displeasure with such abuse of its processes.