Judgment No. SC 47/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 695/15 2 Whether or not the subpoena duces tecum violates the appellants’ right to privacy The appellants submit that upholding the subpoena duces tecum will undermine the first appellant’s right to privacy and in the process would constitute a contravention of both the Constitution and common law principles relating to privacy. Section 57 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013 provides that every person has a right to privacy. The right to privacy was explained in Gaertner and Others v Minister of Finance and Others [2013] ZACC 38; 2014 (1) SA 442 (CC) as follows: “The right to privacy embraces the right to be free from intrusions and interference by the state and others in one’s personal life.” Simply put, every person has a right not to be subjected to scrutiny of his or her personal life or business. The right is also accorded to juristic persons. However, while this right is protected, it is subject to limitations. Section 86 (2) of the Constitution provides for the limitations of rights and freedoms as follows: “(2) The fundamental rights and freedoms set out in this Chapter may be limited only in terms of a law of general applicatil lon and to the extent that the limitation is fair, reasonable, necessary and justifiable in a democratic society based on openness, justice, human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including— the nature of the right or freedom concerned; (a) the purpose of the limitation, in particular whether itis necessary in the interests of (b) defence, public safety, public order, public morality, public health, regional or town planning or the general public interest; (C) (d) (e) (f) the nature and extent of the limitation; the need to ensure that the enjoyment of rights and freedoms by any person does not prejudice the rights and freedoms of others; the relationship between the limitation and its purpose, in particular whether it imposes greater restrictions on the right or freedom concerned than are necessary to achieve its purpose; and whether there are any less restrictive means of achieving the purpose of the limitation.”