MAJIEDT J [72] Roering77 was an appeal against an order of the High Court setting aside as an abuse of process the summons calling for the MEC for Health in Gauteng, Ms Mahlangu’s, appearance before a liquidation enquiry. The Supreme Court of Appeal concluded that there was no evidence that the issuing of the summons constituted an abuse. In upholding the appeal, the Court held that the fundamental issue in determining whether there was an abuse was whether the enquiry was being used for a purpose not contemplated by the Act.78 This case, too, does not support the respondents’ case. It does not entail a substantive claim based on motive alone. [73] Another decision relied on is Gold Fields.79 That was a joinder application in a certification application in a contemplated class action for damages for the contracting of silicosis in certain mines. At issue was whether Motley was sufficiently in control of the certification application and whether it stood to benefit from it to a sufficient degree to justify its joinder. The joinder application was dismissed. The High Court held that there may still be exceptional circumstances in which champertous agreements may in fact constitute an abuse of process, in which case the court would not countenance them. This will be the case, for instance, where the litigation is frivolous or vexatious, or where litigation is being pursued for an ulterior motive.80 It seems to me that the reasoning in the case which dealt with the validity of champertous agreements cannot simply be applied to defamation claims. Champerty is a question of public policy. The question in Gold Fields ultimately turned upon whether there was a sufficient interest to warrant joinder. That is about complying with the requirements for joinder, not using a process to achieve an impermissible end. [74] Another case dealing with champertous agreements mentioned in the High Court’s judgment is Price Waterhouse Coopers.81 The High Court’s reliance on 77 Roering above n 18. 78 Id at para 35. 79 Gold Fields above n 18. 80 Id at para 28. 81 Price Waterhouse Coopers Inc v National Potato Co-operative Ltd [2004] ZASCA 64; 2004 (6) SA 66. 33