MAJIEDT J [13] The plaintiffs sought damages for the alleged defamation, alternatively, public apologies. In their SLAPP special plea, the defendants pleaded that these claims are brought against the individual defendants even though— (a) the mining companies do not allege any patrimonial loss; (b) the mining companies do not allege that the alleged defamatory statements concerned are false; and (c) the mining companies do not honestly believe that they have any prospect of recovering the amount of damages claimed from the individual defendants. [14] The defendants pleaded that the plaintiffs’ conduct in this regard “forms part of a pattern of conduct”. This “pattern of conduct” involves these mining companies and their directors bringing “defamation actions for the ulterior purpose” of— (a) discouraging, censoring, intimidating, and silencing the defendants in relation to public criticism of the plaintiffs; and (b) intimidating and silencing members of civil society, the public, and the media in relation to public criticism of the plaintiffs. [15] The defendants concluded in their special plea that the bringing of the defamation actions— (a) is an abuse of process of court; (b) amounts to the use of court process to achieve an improper end and to use litigation to cause the defendants financial and/or other prejudice in order to silence them; and (c) violates the right to freedom of expression entrenched in section 16 of the Constitution. [16] Finally, the defendants pleaded that, insofar as it may be held that the existing common law does not allow for the dismissal of an action on this basis, the common law should be developed in terms of sections 8(3) and 39(2) of the Constitution. 8