MAJIEDT J [68] Like Zuma, the other cases relied upon by the applicants must be distinguished from the present one. As stated, the unlawful arrest and malicious prosecution cases rest on a different substratum – bad motive in and of itself can never be an adequate ground for escaping arrest and prosecution. The criminal law can simply not countenance it. And Estate Logie and Bissett do not bear direct relevance to the issue before this Court. The former must be understood in the context of the finding that the enforcement of a debt by utilising sequestration proceedings is unobjectionable and does not constitute an abuse of process. Bissett also rests on distinguishable facts, but in any event appears to include both merits and motive in its assessment. The respondents’ reliance on case law in support of their primary contention that merits do not feature at all in an abuse of process enquiry, also do not bear scrutiny, which is the next topic of discussion. Cases relied on by the respondents [69] Lawyers for Human Rights70 concerned whether a non-governmental organisation should be mulcted with costs for bringing an application late and on an urgent basis. The application was to vindicate constitutional rights, so Biowatch71 applied. But this Court held that if the application constituted an abuse of process, then the applicant could be saddled with costs. In reaching its decision, this Court said: “Ultimately the inquiry on the appropriateness of the proceedings requires a close and careful examination of all the circumstances. This is what we have to do here. The considerations include the period of the delay between the raids and the application, the reasons for bringing the application and the prejudice, if any, the urgent proceedings caused the respondents.”72 (Emphasis added.) 70 Lawyers for Human Rights above n 17. 71 Biowatch Trust v Registrar Genetic Resources [2009] ZACC 14; 2009 (6) SA 232 (CC); 2009 (10) BCLR 1014 (CC). 72 Lawyers for Human Rights above n 17 at para 21. 31