MAJIEDT J [29] The respondents make extensive submissions as to why the applicants’ strong reliance on Maphanga19 is misplaced. First, they say that in that case the question of improper motive does not appear to have been at issue. Second, if Maphanga did indeed purport to hold that the motive or purpose of the litigation was irrelevant to debates about abuse of process, this would have been wrong. It would have been inconsistent with a series of decisions of our courts, including the Supreme Court of Appeal and this Court. Furthermore, the respondents assert that the applicants’ invocation of cases dealing with the legality of arrests and criminal prosecutions are inapposite. Those cases are distinguishable, as there is plainly good reason for the law to refuse to provide a route for a person who commits a crime to avoid arrest or prosecution by asserting bad motives against an arresting officer or prosecutor. [30] The respondents further submit that this Court need not decide the question when an ulterior purpose can be enough to conclude that there is abuse of process in order to dismiss the appeal. It only needs to decide whether, given the facts pleaded by the respondents (which must be accepted as true), the ulterior motive of the mining companies behind their defamation claims could conceivably constitute an abuse of process. According to the respondents, litigation brought for an ulterior purpose is patently impermissible. It constitutes an abuse of process. This is for two reasons: first, the importance of free engagement and debate on matters of public importance; and, second, the environmental context in which these actions have been brought is especially concerning. [31] The respondents conclude that under the existing common law, the special pleas are good in law. Whether they are established on the facts is a matter for the trial court to determine in due course. The notion that the special pleas can be rejected at this stage, before evidence on them is even led, is, according to the respondents, not correct. The respondents therefore submit that the plaintiff’s’ appeal and exception must fail. 19 Maphanga above n 15. 13