MAJIEDT J “in the interests of justice” – the standard set by section 167(6) of the Constitution34 – for this Court to hear the appeal. This first set of exceptions raise questions concerning the constitutional right to freedom of expression, the right to access to courts, as well as meaningful public participation in matters of public importance, such as compliance with environmental regulations by mining companies. In considering and then dismissing these exceptions, the High Court was clearly concerned with a constitutional matter and that order constitutes a decision on a constitutional matter as contemplated in rule 19. [40] As stated, there is a close link between this matter and CCT 67/21, and this further supports the appealability of this case. The High Court found that our common law recognises a SLAPP suit defence to an action for defamation which requires no consideration at all of the merits of the claim. This effectively permits a defendant to seek the dismissal of an action solely on the basis that it is brought for an ulterior purpose and without any regard to the merits of the plaintiff’s claim. This may potentially be definitive of the rights of the parties in the actions and may later on dispose of the actions. Usually, a dismissal of an exception is not appealable on the basis that the question of law can be argued again at the end of the trial. But sometimes, as here, this position must yield to a circumstance where an important and novel question of law requires determination so that the trial may proceed with certainty as to whether the defence as pleaded is in fact good in law. In this respect, the present matter is different to Baliso,35 where this Court refused leave against the dismissal of an exception. It is thus in the interests of justice for leave to appeal to be granted in this the appeal is sought to be brought and after giving notice to the other party or parties concerned, lodge with the Registrar an application for leave to appeal: Provided that where the President has refused leave to appeal the period prescribed in this rule shall run from the date of the order refusing leave.” 34 Section 167(6) reads: “National legislation or the rules of the Constitutional Court must allow a person, when it is in the interests of justice and with leave of the Constitutional Court— 35 (a) to bring a matter directly to the Constitutional Court; or (b) to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court from any other court.” Baliso v Firstrand Bank Ltd t/a Wesbank [2016] ZACC 23; 2017 (1) SA 292 (CC); 2016 (10) BCLR 1253 (CC). 18