Judgment No. SC 47/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 695/15 In the event, this court is entitled to take note of the record of proceedings in HC 11003/16. The record confirms indeed that the second appellant had been discharged from the first appellant’s employ. The subpoena sought his attendance at the disputed proceedings between the first respondent and his erstwhile employer in his capacity as its Managing Director. In view of the discharge it can no longer be possible for him to attend in such capacity. He would no longer have the right to access any documents belonging to the first appellant. Thus it is no longer possible for him to fulfil the terms of the impugned subpoena. I turn now to the substance of the appeal. The first appellant took issue with the fact that the subpoena specifies an individual to come and testify. It submitted that the court a quo failed to appreciate that the subpoena issued in this matter is one duces tecum which does not require the attendance of a particular person on the premise that a subpoena duces tecum which compels the production of documents does not in the same vein require the giving of oral testimony. For this submission, the appellant relied on the case of Poli v Minister of Finance and Economic Development & Anor 1987 (2) ZLR 302 (SC) in which DUMBUTSHENA CJ quoted Fisher v United States (1976) 425 US 391;48 Led 2d 39 where it was stated: “A subpoena that demands production of documents ‘does not compel oral testimony; nor would it ordinarily compel the taxpayer to restate, repeat, or affirm the truth of the contents of the documents sought.” In my view this 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.