Finally, it also has to be noted that in granting the application for interlocutory injunction, the trial High Court was exercising a discretion. But that discretion had to be exercised judiciously. In the exercise of such discretion, the trial judge ought to take into consideration the pleadings and affidavit evidence before it; See the case of Pountney vs. Doegah (1987-88) 1 GLR 111 at 116. There is a long line of cases that show that an appeal against the exercise of a court’s discretion may succeed on the ground that the discretion was exercised on wrong or inadequate materials if it can be shown that the court acted under a misapprehension of fact in that it either gave weight to irrelevant or unproved matters or omitted to take relevant matters into account, but the appeal is not from the discretion of the court to the discretion of the appellate tribunal – See the cases of Blunt vs. Blunt (1993) AC 517 at 518, Owusu vs. Owusu-Ansah &Another (2007-2008) 2 SCGLR 870.