MAJIEDT J [17] The plaintiffs excepted to the SLAPP special plea. They did so: first, on the basis that the defendants had not brought an application in terms of the Vexatious Proceedings Act9 (the Act); and, second, on the basis that the defendants had not satisfied the requirements for abuse of process at common law which, they say, “require that the Court finds that the proceedings are obviously unsustainable as a certainty and not merely on the preponderance of possibility”. The reliance on the Act has effectively fallen away and we are only concerned here with abuse of process under the common law. This is because, as the applicants rightly say, the respondents do not purport to rely on the Act, nor could they. Section 2(1)(b) of that Act would not apply here – the section requires a separate application for protection against a vexatious litigant to be brought by a defendant. Protection cannot be obtained simply by filing a plea in which abuse is alleged. The applicants’ main submissions [18] First, as to appealability, the applicants submit that the order of the High Court meets the requirements for appealability, laid down in Zweni,10 that is: it is final in effect and not susceptible to alteration by that Court; it is definitive in certain respects of the rights of the parties; and has the effect of disposing of a substantial portion of the relief claimed.11 The order also complies with the adaptation of the Zweni test by this Court in, amongst others, SCAW,12 as it is in the interests of justice that it be heard by this Court. [19] In essence, the applicants’ case is that recognising the SLAPP suit defence on the terms that it is pleaded permits the respondents (as defendants) to put the applicants (as plaintiffs) on trial in the actions where the only issue will be the applicants’ motives. 9 3 of 1956. 10 Zweni v Minister of Law and Order [1992] ZASCA 197; 1993 (1) SA 523 (A). 11 Id at 532J-533A. 12 International Trade Administration Commission v SCAW South Africa (Pty) Ltd [2010] ZACC 6; 2012 (4) SA 618 (CC); 2010 (5) BCLR 457 (CC) at para 53. 9