…… Orders fresh hearing
The Court of Appeal, has overturned a High Court decision that struck veteran lawyer and former Ghana Bar Association (GBA) President Sam Okudzeto, his daughter, Esine Okudzeto, and their law firm, Sam Okudzeto and Associates, out of a long-running inheritance dispute, ruling that they are proper parties to the proceedings.
The appellate court further directed that the case be transferred from Justice Akosua Danso Asiama Christopher, who had presided over the matter at the High Court, to a differently constituted High Court for a fresh hearing before another judge.
In a unanimous decision delivered last Thursday, a three-member panel comprising Justice Emmanuel Ankamah, who presided, Justice Samuel Obeng-Diawuo and Justice Cecilia Naa Shormeh Davis held that the trial judge erred in applying the legal test for determining the proper parties in a probate action.
The court consequently allowed the appeal, awarded costs of GH¢10,000 in favour of the appellant, Peter Kweku Okudzeto, against the respondent, and ordered that the matter be remitted to the High Court for trial before a different judge.
Monalisa Oppong Owusu Asare represented Sam Okudzeto, Esine Okudzeto and their law firm, while Eli Ahu appeared for Peter Okudzeto.
The Court of Appeal was asked to determine whether the High Court had been correct in striking out the three respondents from the suit and whether the allegations of professional misconduct levelled against them warranted judicial examination at trial.
Justice Asiama Christopher had, in a ruling delivered on 18 November 2025, removed Sam Okudzeto, Esine Okudzeto and Sam Okudzeto and Associates from the proceedings, leaving Eric Akwetey-Siaw Sappore and Charles Noble Doe Acolatse as the remaining defendants.
Despite being struck out as parties, Sam Okudzeto and his law firm have continued to act as legal representatives for the remaining defendants.
Unlike Eric, Acolatse has no known relationship with the deceased persons. Sam Okudzeto, who shares the same father as Peter, and his daughter, Esine, also have no blood relations with the deceased persons, apart from acting as their lawyers.
The dispute centres on the administration of the estates of the late Baby Angelina Mamle Siaw Sappore and her brother, Dr Daniel Narh Siaw, both maternal relatives of the appellants. Baby Angelina died on 25 April 2008, while Dr Siaw died on 29 October 2023.
Peter Okudzeto, who represented himself alongside his maternal siblings Thomas Sekou and Felicia Sekou, alleges that Sam Okudzeto, Esine Okudzeto and their law firm committed fraud, intermeddling, breach of fiduciary duty, conflict of interest and undervaluation of estate assets during the administration of the estates.
Peter Okudzeto and his maternal siblings, Thomas Sekou and Felicia Sekou, are beneficiaries of the estates through their mother, who was a sister of Baby Angelina Mamle Siaw Sappore and Dr Daniel Narh Siaw.
The respondents have denied all the allegations.
At the heart of the dispute is a purported will allegedly executed by Dr Siaw in 2018. The appellants contend that the document was fabricated and backdated to facilitate the transfer of estate assets and alter the lawful distribution of the estate.
Court filings also question the valuation of significant estate properties, including the “Jet House” on Kojo Thompson Road in Adabraka and the “NCR House” near Roxy Cinema on Kwame Nkrumah Avenue.
According to the appellants, Jet House, initially valued at more than US$3 million, was subsequently valued at GH¢2 million, while NCR House was reportedly valued at GH¢200,000. They argue that it remains unclear whether qualified professional valuers were engaged or whether the valuations were determined without independent expert assessment.
The appellants further allege that some properties listed in the disputed will were only identified in 2019, a year after the will is said to have been executed, raising questions about the document’s authenticity.
During proceedings before the Court of Appeal on 28 April 2026, the appellants argued that the respondents had committed what they described as “flagrant violations” of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Rules, 2020 (L.I. 2423), and relied on a Special Purpose Vehicle established in the name of the late Dr Daniel Narh Siaw to deprive beneficiaries of their inheritance.
They maintained that Sam Okudzeto, his daughter and their law firm were central to the allegations of fraud and forgery and should therefore remain parties to the proceedings to enable the court to determine all issues comprehensively.
Peter Okudzeto also argued that the dispute extended beyond probate matters to include tortious and equitable claims, including conspiracy, negligent misrepresentation, knowing assistance in breach of trust, and misuse of confidential information obtained during previous legal representation of the family.
Among the allegations is the claim that Esine Okudzeto acted as counsel in the probate proceedings while simultaneously being a beneficiary under the disputed will, a situation the appellants contend constituted a conflict of interest.
The appellants further alleged that estate documents were retained without authority, that there was improper interference in the administration of the estates, and that confidential information was used to facilitate the creation of the disputed will.
Relying on Orders 4 and 66 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47), together with several Supreme Court authorities, Peter Okudzeto argued that the respondents were necessary parties because the reliefs sought included injunctions, disclosure orders and remedies relating to alleged fraud and breach of trust.
He further submitted that allegations of fraud should be determined after a full trial with oral evidence rather than on affidavit evidence alone.
The respondents maintained that the matter was purely a probate dispute and that only the personal representatives of the estates were proper parties to the proceedings.
Peter Okudzeto, however, argued that such an approach elevated procedural technicalities above substantive justice and would prevent the court from fully determining the issues in dispute.
The Court of Appeal agreed that the High Court had applied the wrong legal test in determining who constituted proper parties to the action, leading it to set aside the earlier ruling.
The full written judgment of the Court of Appeal is expected to be released in due course.
