Judgment No. SC 47/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 695/15 In addition, it seems to me that a reading of s 6 of the Act would further confirm that the submission by the appellants on the nature and intent behind a subpoena duces tecum as being one for the production of documents and not the giving of oral testimony is in fact correct. Certainly, from a perusal of the provision there does not appear to be a requirement that the production of documents by a witness must be accompanied by oral evidence in proof of the same. This construction of the provision is keeping with the views expressed by DUMBUTSHENA CJ in Poli v Minister of Finance and Economic Development & Anor (supra). In my view, within our jurisdiction the above authority is support for the principle that a subpoena duces tecum can only demand the production of documents as opposed to compelling a witness give oral testimony. It is legally incompetent for a subpoena duces tecum to compel the giving of oral testimony on the premise that by its nature, it demands the production of documents. A subpoena duces tecum differs from a standard subpoena, also known as a “subpoena ad testificandum,” because the subpoena duces tecum does not require the person named in it to give oral testimony. Instead, the subpoena duces tecum only orders the person to produce the items stated in the document. On this basis alone, the court a guo should have found that the subpoena as framed by the first respondent could not stand and consequently had to be set aside. In my view, this ground on its own is capable of disposing of the appeal. However, the other issues raised sufficiently pertinent legal issues calling for their determination.