LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Discretion of Court – Exercise of Discretion to Relist Appeal
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The Court of Appeal's power to grant applications under Order 3 rule 25(2) is discretionary; for an appeal against exercise of this discretion to succeed, the appellant must show wrongful exercise—that the court acted under a mistake of law, in disregard of principle, or under misapprehension of the facts.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"The power of the Court of Appeal to grant an application under Order 3 rule 25 (2) is discretionary. Therefore, for an appeal against the exercise of the discretion, by the Court of Appeal, to succeed it must be shown by the appellant that there has been a wrongful exercise of the discretion in that the court had acted under a mistake of law, or in disregard of principle, or under a misapprehension of the facts..."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Discretionary decisions receive appellate deference. Courts won’t interfere merely because they would have decided differently. Interference requires showing “wrongful exercise” through: (1) Mistake of law—applying wrong legal principles or misinterpreting governing law; (2) Disregard of principle—ignoring established legal principles that should guide the discretion; (3) Misapprehension of facts—basing the decision on incorrect or incomplete facts. Appellants must demonstrate actual error, not merely alternative reasonable outcomes. This high threshold for interference respects lower courts’ discretionary authority while ensuring legal errors and factual mistakes are corrected. The principle applies generally to discretionary decisions: case management orders, procedural applications, and other matters within judicial discretion. It balances judicial independence against appellate oversight