The inheritance fraud case against Sam Okudzeto has reached the Supreme Court, with the prominent lawyer and former Council of State Member challenging a Court of Appeal decision that he, his daughter and their law firm must answer for allegedly interfering with the estates of their deceased clients, Baby Angelina Mamle Siaw-Sappor and Dr Daniel Narh Siaw.
Mr Okudzeto, 91 and a former Ghana Bar President, is also challenging the appellate court’s decision dated 25 June 2026, which directed that the matter be reheard before a differently constituted High Court after setting aside the ruling of Justice Akosua Danso Asiama Christopher, who had struck out the first three defendants from the suit.
The action was brought by Peter Kwaku Okudzeto, a half-brother of Sam Okudzeto, together with his siblings, Thomas Sekou and Felicia Sekou.
Baby Angelina died on 25 April 2008, while Dr Daniel Narh Siaw passed away on 29 October 2023. Under Ada (Ga-Adangbe) customary law, persons who die intestate without a surviving spouse, child or parent, paternal blood relatives are the beneficiaries of their estate. Peter Okudzeto and his siblings, as children of the late Christiana Aku Sappor, a sister of the deceased persons, are among the lawful beneficiaries of the estate.
Baby Angelina’s estate includes the well-known Jet House on Kojo Thompson Road in Adabraka and NCR House near Roxy Cinema on Kwame Nkrumah Avenue in Accra. She is said to have acquired the properties through her marriage to a colonial-era surveyor who died many years before her. She was also widely known as the first National Women’s Organiser of the National Democratic Congress (NDC).
Peter Okudzeto and his siblings contend that, apart from providing legal services to the deceased and receiving professional fees, neither Sam Okudzeto nor his daughter is related by blood to Baby Angelina or to Dr Daniel Narh Siaw, and therefore cannot lawfully benefit from their estates. No part of Sam is from Ada.
In their submissions before the Court of Appeal, Peter Okudzeto and his siblings accused Sam Okudzeto, Esine Okudzeto and their law firm of professional misconduct, arguing that they committed what they described as a “flagrant violation” of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Rules, 2020 (L.I. 2423).
The allegations carry particular significance because both Sam and Esine Okudzeto lecture in legal ethics at the Ghana School of Law. For years, Sam has been a member of the Ethics Committee of the General Legal Council, where many lawyers have faced disciplinary issues and, in some cases, been suspended from practising as lawyers.
According to Peter and his siblings, Sam and Esine Okudzeto became involved in the administration of Baby Angelina’s estate after two of the deceased’s nephews obtained Letters of Administration, which the courts subsequently set aside as fraudulent.
Peter and his siblings allege that Sam Okudzeto and the other defendants later established a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) in the name of the late Dr Daniel Narh Siaw and used it to transfer properties from Baby Angelina’s estate in an attempt to deprive the lawful beneficiaries of their inheritance.
They further allege that one of the disputed properties was transferred to Esine Okudzeto despite her having no familial relationship with Baby Angelina, who appeared in the pioneering Ghanaian film The Boy Kumasenu (1952), starring the late Guy Warren, alias “Kofi Ghanaba”, a prominent Ghanaian musician.
Documents available to The Herald indicate that the Registrar of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) summoned the parties to appear before the court on 30 July 2026 to settle the record of appeal, a procedural step required before the matter proceeds to the apex court. The summons was issued on 16 July 2026.
The notice of appeal, filed on 1 July 2026 by Isaac Ofosu-Boateng of Sam Okudzeto and Associates, states that Sam and Esine, the appellants, are dissatisfied with the Court of Appeal’s decision in its entirety and are asking the Supreme Court to overturn it.
Among other grounds, they argue that the Court of Appeal erred in law by concluding that the High Court had wrongly exercised its discretion in striking out the first three defendants, leaving Eric Akwetey-Siaw Sappor and Charles Noble Doe Acolatse, who resides in the United Kingdom,in the suit.
Sam, Esine and their law firm also contend that the appellate court had no legal basis to order a retrial before a different High Court judge in the absence of any allegation or finding of judicial bias against Justice Akosua Danso Asiama Christopher.
Sam and the other appellants have indicated that they will file additional grounds of appeal after obtaining the full written judgment of the Court of Appeal. They are seeking an order restoring the High Court’s decision striking out Sam Okudzeto, Esine Okudzeto and their law firm from the proceedings.
Peter Okudzeto and his siblings, however, maintain that the respondents are indispensable parties because the claims extend beyond probate issues and include allegations of conspiracy, misrepresentation, breach of trust, fraud and forgery.
They further allege that the respondents retained estate documents without authority, interfered in the administration of the estates and misused confidential information obtained during their earlier legal representation of the family.
The plaintiffs also claim that Esine Okudzeto acted as counsel in probate proceedings while simultaneously being named as a beneficiary under the disputed will, which Peter and his siblings described as a serious conflict of interest.
They further contend that insider knowledge gained during the respondents’ legal representation of the family was used to prepare what they describe as a fraudulent will and to facilitate the transfer of estate assets through backdated documentation.
Peter Okudzeto and his siblings have questioned valuations placed on some of the estate’s prime properties, alleging that Jet House, previously valued at more than US$3 million, was subsequently valued at GH¢2 million, while imposing NCR House was reportedly valued at a paltry GH¢200,000. They have questioned whether professional valuers were engaged or whether the figures were determined without independent expert assessment.
They have also argued that some properties listed in the disputed will were only identified in 2019, more than a year after the document was allegedly executed, raising questions about its authenticity.
According to Peter and his siblings, removing Sam, Esine, and their law firm from the proceedings, as done by Justice Asiama-Christopher, would prevent the court from fully determining the allegations and granting effective relief, including orders for the release of estate documents and injunctions.
Sam Okudzeto, on the other hand, has maintained that the matter is strictly a probate dispute and that only the personal representatives of the estates should be parties to the proceedings. However, Peter and the others have rejected that position, arguing that such an approach elevates procedural technicalities above substantive justice.
They argued that the Court of Appeal should reverse the High Court’s decision and restore the respondents to the proceedings so that all allegations can be examined during a full trial, and added that failure to do so would result in what they describe as an incomplete adjudication and a “paper victory,” thereby denying the court access to key evidence needed to reach a just decision.
Peter and his siblings are being represented by Andreas Fiadome and Eli Ahu of Kpatsa and Associates.
The dispute has its origins in earlier litigation over the administration of Baby Angelina’s estate. In judgments delivered on 16 June 2016 and 24 November 2016 in Eric Tei Akwetey Siaw, Dr Daniel Narh Siaw and Emmanuel Thomas Sekou vs. Tetteh Siaw Sappore and Narteh Siaw Sappore, the Court of Appeal upheld the rights of the lawful administrators of Baby Angelina’s estate after finding that the respondents had unlawfully interfered with its administration.
Earlier, the Court of Appeal had affirmed the rights of lawful administrators of a deceased person’s estate by upholding proceedings against relatives accused of unlawfully interfering with the administration of the estate of the late Angelina Mamle Siaw-Sappore.
The decision arose from a long-running family dispute involving members of the Siaw-Sappore family of Ada over the administration of the estate of Baby Angelina Mamle Siaw-Sappore, who died intestate without a husband or children.
The 24 November 2016 judgment case of Eric Tei Akwetey Siaw, Dr Daniel Narh Siaw, and Emmanuel Thomas Sekou Vs Tetteh Siaw Sappore and Narteh Siaw Sappore described the parties as close relatives. The defendants were identified as nephews of the first two plaintiffs, while the third plaintiff was the son of a sister of the deceased and a cousin of the defendants, Tetteh Siaw Sappore and Narteh Siaw Sappore.
The dispute began after the defendants fraudulently applied for and obtained Letters of Administration over the deceased’s estate, claiming they had been selected by the family to administer it. The plaintiffs challenged the grant, arguing that under Ada customary law, they, as the deceased’s surviving siblings, were entitled to administer the estate because she died unmarried and childless. Angelina had lost her only son many years before she died.
In a judgment delivered on 24 November 2016 by Justices PK Gyaesayor, Irene C. Larbi and Senyo Dzamefe, the Court of Appeal noted that attempts to resolve the matter through an out-of-court settlement had failed, leading to protracted litigation among the relatives.
An earlier judgment delivered by Justices F. Kusi-Appiah, A. M. Dordzie, and Senyo Dzamefe of the Court of Appeal on 16th June 2016, had also disclosed that Eric Tei Akwetey Siaw, Dr Daniel Narh Siaw, and Emmanuel Thomas Sekou filed an application before the High Court at Tema under Order 66 Rule 3 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47), seeking to have the respondents punished for intermeddling with the estate.
The application was founded on allegations that the respondents, Tetteh Siaw Sappore and Narteh Siaw Sappore, had fraudulently obtained the original Letters of Administration. The appellants had earlier instituted proceedings challenging the grant, and the court ruled in their favour by setting aside the respondents’ Letters of Administration.
Following that decision, the appellants successfully applied for fresh Letters of Administration and became the lawful administrators of the estate. Despite the court’s ruling, the Tetteh Siaw Sappore and Narteh Siaw Sappore refused to surrender control of the estate or hand over its assets to the lawful administrators, prompting the appellants to seek Contempt of Court for intermeddling.
The Court of Appeal considered whether persons whose Letters of Administration had been revoked could continue to deal with the estate and whether their conduct amounted to unlawful interference with property belonging to a deceased person’s estate.
Interestingly, both the 16th June 2016 and 24 November 2016 were argued by Isaac Ofosu-Boateng of Sam Okudzeto and Associates on behalf of the Siaw-Sappore family of Ada in the Dangme East District of the Greater Accra Region.
