MAJIEDT J [32] If they are wrong for any reason on the position of the existing common law, say the respondents, then the existing common law falls to be developed. They contend that this case falls squarely within the principles laid down in DZ.20 The respondents are at pains to emphasise that they do not suggest that this Court should create an entire SLAPP suit regime via the development of the common law. What they propose, instead, is that the real and pressing concerns alluded to on this score must be considered in determining whether and how the existing common law principles of abuse of process are to be developed. They draw an analogy to the development of the common law regulating class actions.21 [33] The respondents maintain that it would be untenable to uphold the applicants’ contention that would preclude the development of the common law at this stage on exception. It cannot seriously be contended that it is “legally impossible” for the common law to be developed in a manner that would sustain the special plea. Doing so would foreclose the development of the common law on this critical issue and be directly at odds with this Court’s approach in Fetal Assessment Centre.22 Jurisdiction and leave to appeal [34] For leave to appeal to be granted in this Court, an applicant must meet two requirements. First, the matter must fall within the jurisdiction of this Court in that it raises a constitutional issue or an arguable point of law of general public importance and second, the interests of justice must warrant that leave to appeal be granted. [35] The issues are plainly of manifest importance. The parties are agreed that the interests of justice favour granting the application for leave to appeal. They are in 20 DZ above n 16. In this regard, the respondents cite the Supreme Court of Appeal’s judgments in Children’s Resource Centre Trust v Pioneer Food (Pty) Ltd [2012] ZASCA 182; 2013 (2) SA 213 (SCA) and Mukaddam v Pioneer Foods (Pty) Ltd [2013] ZACC 23; 2013 (5) SA 89 (CC); 2013 (10) BCLR 1135 (CC). 21 22 H v Fetal Assessment Centre [2014] ZACC 34; 2015 (2) SA 193 (CC); 2015 (2) BCLR 127 (CC). 14