Judgment No. SC 47/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 695/15 result the appellants applied to the Fiscal Appeal Court on 17 March 2015 for an order for the setting aside of the subpoena duces tecum. The court a quo found that the requested documents were relevant to the determination of the real issues between the first and second respondents and that the first appellant’s right to privacy was countervailed by the first respondent’s right to access of information. Relating to the second appellant, the court held that he was a competent and compellable witness and could testify on the pertinent issues found in the subpoenaed documents. The court also held that the scope and reach of the documents was unavoidable given the nature of a base station. Ultimately, the court refused to set aside the subpoena and dismissed the application. The appellants were aggrieved by the decision and appealed to this Court on the following grounds: 1. The court a quo erred in failing to consider that the evidence which first respondent wanted to force appellants to produce is in the possession of second respondent and first respondent could consequently enforce production of same from the party against whom it seeks substantive relief. 2. A fortiori the court a quo erred in not concluding that the taking out of the subpoena was consequently an exercise in mischief and was meant to be unduly oppressive to the appellants under circumstances where such invasion was contrary to the appellant’s right to privacy. 3. Having come to the conclusion that what was at issue was a subpoena duces tecum, the court a quo erred in failing to consider that such a subpoena does not require the testimony