The basis of the Appellant’s claim was a letter of demand and notice of intention to sue written and served on the Respondents by the Appellant’s advocate. The Appellant claims that the said demand and notice of intention to sue was defamatory, hence he instituted civil suit against the Respondents. Upon intuition of the said suit, the Respondent raised point of preliminary objection that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action against them. The lower court made two contradictory rulings, one on 22nd September 2010 (in which it dismissed the Respondents’ preliminary objections on points of law) and the other delivered on 12th October 2010 (in which it sustained the said preliminary objections). The record of the lower court shows that after delivering the “first” ruling on 22nd September 2010, counsel for the then defendant informed the court that the ruling was delivered pre-maturely because he had not yet filed his client’s rejoinder submissions because the Appellant (the then defendant)’s advocate had not served them with his replying submissions.