The most senior judge in the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, said there had been confusion in the previous decision.

"We have become more and more concerned as to the exercise the judge undertook," he added.

"For those reasons - we are agreed remittal should be allowed."

He urged the family to find a solution through constructive dialogue.

At the hearing, the boy's barrister, Deirdre Fottrell KC, said he is "desperate" to return to the UK.

"He is culturally displaced and alienated," she said.

"He considers himself abandoned by his family. He feels he is a British boy, a London boy."

The boy remains in Ghana and has been attending a day school there.

His solicitor, James Netto, described the appeal ruling as a "hugely significant" decision that would "resonate across international family law."

He said: "We are very pleased indeed that the Court of Appeal has allowed our client's appeal, and has recognised the critical importance of listening to and assessing the voices of young people at the heart of legal proceedings that profoundly affect their lives."

The parents' barrister, Rebecca Foulkes, said that staying in Ghana was the "least harmful" option for the boy.

"The parents found themselves in a wholly invidious decision when they made the decision they made," she said.

"Ghana provided a safe haven, separate from those who exposed him to risk.

"The least harmful option is for him to remain in Ghana."

At the heart of the case is the tension between conflicting legal entitlements - the parents' responsibility for their child, and the child's own rights to make decisions about what happens to them.

The High Court had ruled the parents could send the boy to Ghana. But the Court of Appeal found that judge had not taken sufficient account of the boy's own best interests and welfare, given he had recognised the boy was mature enough to make certain decisions for himself.

The boy previously told the court that he felt like he was "living in hell".

He said he was "mocked" at the school in Ghana and "could also barely understand what was going on".

During the previous judgment, High Court judge Mr Justice Hayden said the parents' wish for their son to move to Ghana was "driven by their deep, obvious and unconditional love".

He found that the boy, who had lived in the UK since birth, was at risk of suffering greater harm by returning to London.

He said that the boy's parents believe "and in my judgement with reason" that their son has "at very least peripheral involvement with gang culture and has exhibited an unhealthy interest in knives".

Sir Andrew said the case will now be reheard by a different judge, with the next hearing planned to take place in the next few weeks.

A full decision will be given in writing at a later date.