MAJIEDT J [51] Recently in Ascendis, this Court held: “Abuse of process concerns are motivated by the need to protect ‘the integrity of the adjudicative functions of courts’, doing so ensures that procedures permitted by the rules of the Court are not used for a purpose extraneous to the truth-seeking objective inherent to the judicial process.”52 [52] In our common law a number of different categories of abuse have been developed by which our courts ensure the integrity of their own process. There are cases where there is gross abuse by the procedure employed by a litigant, to the extent that the court, as a rare instance, will dismiss the claim, without any regard to the merits. An example is Cassimjee.53 There, the appellant had appealed against the High Court’s dismissal of his action for want of prosecution. The case emanated from a seizure by customs and excise officials of two tankers owned by the appellant’s transport business some 32 years before (in 1977). After the initial exchange of pleadings, about 20 years elapsed during which no steps were taken by either party to advance the action. There was a brief stir from the slumber in 2001 when a firm of attorneys placed themselves on record for the appellant and gave notice purporting to place the matter on the awaiting trial roll. But another four years went by and eventually, in 2006, the dismissal application was brought by the Minister of Finance, which was granted in 2010. The Supreme Court of Appeal confirmed the High Court’s dismissal, on the ground that the delay in prosecuting the claim was inordinate and the prejudice to the defendant (the Minister) was manifest. That Court held that the High Court correctly exercised its discretion to dismiss the action, through its inherent power to prevent abuse of its process. Self-evidently, abuse of process that impinges upon the court’s integrity is quite distinct from abuse that is designed to cause harm to a party. Cassimjee is a typical example of the former, where the abuse of court was held to have resulted in prejudice to the defendant, the Minister. 52 Judgment of Khampepe J in Ascendis above n 18 at para 40. 53 Cassimjee v Minister of Finance [2012] ZASCA 101; 2014 (3) SA 198 (SCA). 24