MAJIEDT J serious criminal charges, including charges of racketeering, corruption, money laundering and fraud, was held to be invalid and was reviewed and set aside. In dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeal held that motive to prosecute is entirely irrelevant. Again, this will be discussed presently, as this is a case upon which the applicants place much reliance. [55] The question before us is whether there may be a further species of abuse case of the kind set out in the special plea that falls within the inherent jurisdiction of the court to ensure that the court’s processes are not abused. Before answering that question, a brief discussion of the cases relied upon by the parties for their respective contentions is required. I commence with Maphanga, the main arrow in the applicants’ quiver. Does Maphanga find application? [56] The case concerned an appeal against the dismissal of the appellant’s (MEC) application by the KwaZulu-Natal Division of the High Court, Pietermaritzburg. The main relief was sought under section 2(1)(b) of the Act, alternatively the common law. It entailed repeated attempts by the respondent, Mr Maphanga, to resolve a dispute with the Department of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs, KwaZulu-Natal which culminated in lengthy litigation. During the hearing of the appeal, reliance on section 2(1)(b) of the Act was abandoned and the case was based solely on the court’s inherent jurisdiction to determine its own process under common law. [57] In respect of the common law abuse of process argument, the Supreme Court of Appeal gave the introductory overview cited above. It then noted that— “in granting this type of relief, [courts must] proceed very cautiously and only in a clear case make a general order prohibiting proceedings between the same parties on the same cause of action and in respect of the same subject matter where there has been repeated and persistent litigation, and craft such order to meet only the immediate requirements of the particular case. The stringent onus 26