Judgment No. SC 47/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 695/15 b) The evidence required from our client will not serve any material purpose to the case before the court because whether or not our client paid duty on the relevant components is not the determining factor on whether or not your client should or should not pay the duty. c) The evidence that you seek to adduce from our client, and in particular the documents our client must produce, are documents confidential to it and to its business. Your subpoena’s effect is to call upon our client to disclose its private business making the disclosure to the public, and most objectionably to its competitor (your client). d) Our client has a constitutionally protected right to privacy as it is not a party to this pending case. The subpoena and the nature of the evidence required from our client, constitutes a gross invasion of this right. There is no basis upon which our client can justify the infringement of this right to the court. e) The subpoena also states that the Managing Director, Reward Kangai, is the one who should come to testify. The Managing Director is also required to bring several bulky documents dating back to 1998. All of the documents demanded are operational in nature hence their confidential status aforesaid and the Managing Director subpoenaed is not the custodian of these documents. As such what this subpoena demands is also legally untenable. f) Itis clear from the afore-going that the subpoena served on our client is actually an abuse of court process and must therefore be set aside. Notwithstanding the objections spelt out in the letter, the first respondent persisted with its demand that the second appellant appear in court or face contempt of court charges. As a