KPEGAH J.
This ruling concerns an objection taken to the tendering of a letter by the plaintiffs. The defendants are said to have leased from the plaintiffs, 575 acres of land for 99 years at an annual rent of ¢500. The plaintiffs sought, through meetings with the representatives of the defendant-company, a review of the rent but failed to secure this because the defendants would not agree to any such review.
Frustrated in their initiative, they decided to engage a solicitor who wrote to the defendants reiterating the plaintiffs’ demand that the agreement is unfair and there is a need to review the rent. This probing letter was intended to excite the defendants to react favourably to the plaintiffs’ demands contained therein. The defendants in turn gave the letter to their solicitors who replied to the plaintiffs’ claim and demand. This reply was marked by the defendants’ solicitors “without prejudice.” The plaintiffs are seeking to tender, not this reply, but the one written by their …