MAJIEDT J (d) SLAPP cases use the processes of the court with no evident abuse but to achieve an end that may be harmful for other reasons. These categories can easily be confused as the parties do in this case. [77] What then, is the position in our law – is there room for a SLAPP suit defence to be accommodated in the abuse of process doctrine? What role, if any, does motive and merit play? Abuse of process and the SLAPP suit defence [78] There are two divergent positions postulated before us – as the applicants would have it, motive should play no role whatsoever in the enquiry whether the SLAPP suit defence can be accommodated in the abuse of process doctrine, and merits should be the only factor. Conversely, the respondents submit that the only criterion should be motive, and merits should play no role at all. As I see it, however, both motive and merits must play a role in that enquiry. [79] The debate between the parties regarding the role of motive and merits in the abuse of proceedings doctrine appears to disregard the definition of a SLAPP suit outlined above. It also appears, from the case law relied on by each party, that their arguments went past each other. The respondents relied on case law broadly dealing with ulterior purpose in court proceedings. In that type of case, merits are not a consideration and motive alone is determinative. However, ulterior purpose and SLAPP ought not to be conflated in this way. On the other hand, the applicants rely heavily on Maphanga, which dealt with frivolous and vexatious proceedings. That type of abuse of process requires an assessment of the merits and a lack of merits alone cannot be determinative of an abuse in this instance. The parties’ referencing of case law has not been particularly helpful. They each sought to show that there are cases of abuse that either place emphasis on ulterior purpose or on the merits. As I have sought to demonstrate, these cases fall into quite distinct categories which have little bearing on the problem before us, and they are of slight analogical relevance. 35