Former Council of State member, lawyer Sam Okudzeto, his daughter Esine Okudzeto, and their law firm, Sam Okudzeto and Associates, have formally responded to a writ accusing them of fraud in a high-stakes inheritance dispute currently before the Court of Appeal, insisting they have no case to answer.
Through their counsel, Isaac Ofosu-Boateng, the three respondents argue that the Accra High Court, presided over by Justice Akosua Danso Asiama Christopher, acted correctly in striking them out of the suit filed by Peter Okudzeto, a stepbrother of Sam Okudzeto. The ruling, delivered on 18 November 2025, removed them as parties to the proceedings.
The respondents maintain that they were improperly joined to the action and that the substantive issues in dispute, centred on the validity of a will and the grant of Letters of Administration, ought properly to be determined between the appellant and the administrators of the estate.
They contend that allegations of fraud, forgery, intermeddling, conflict of interest, and professional misconduct levelled against them do not, in law, render them necessary parties to the suit. According to their submission, such allegations cannot expand the scope of a probate action beyond its proper bounds.
The legal team further argues that the appellant’s attempt to pursue claims of fraud and intermeddling through civil proceedings is constitutionally flawed. Citing Article 88(3) of the 1992 Constitution, they emphasise that only the Attorney General has the authority to initiate and conduct criminal prosecutions.
“It is not open to a private party to invoke the civil jurisdiction of the High Court to pursue what is in essence a criminal allegation,” the respondents submitted, warning that such an approach would blur the distinction between civil and criminal law.
The dispute arises from a probate action involving the estates of the late Dr Daniel Narh Siaw and his sister, Baby Angelina Mamle Siaw, who died intestate in 2008. Following her death, Letters of Administration were granted to her surviving siblings, including Christian Aku Siaw Sappor and Dr Narh, who later became the sole administrator.
After Dr Narh’s death in October 2023, a will executed in 2018 was presented, and Letters of Administration with Will annexed were granted in July 2024 to the fourth and fifth defendants in the case.
Peter Okudzeto and his two siblings, children of Christiana Aku Siaw Sappor, subsequently filed a suit in July 2025, alleging, among other claims, that the will was forged and that the defendants had intermeddled in the estates, including the “NCR House”and “Jet House”,in different parts of Accra. He also raised concerns about the alleged undervaluation of estate properties and potential conflicts of interest involving legal counsel.
However, the respondents insist that these claims fall squarely within probate jurisdiction and must be directed at the administrators of the estate, not their legal advisers.
They argue that the role of the law firm and its lawyers was strictly professional, limited to acting on the instructions of their clients in preparing and filing probate documents. As such, they acquired no legal or beneficial interest in the estate and owed duties only to their clients, not to beneficiaries.
Relying on established case law, including Vambaris v Altuna and Agbemashior v State Insurance Corporation, the respondents maintain that a solicitor’s fiduciary duty is owed exclusively to the client who retains them.
On the issue of joinder, the respondents contend that the trial judge properly applied Order 4 Rule 5(2)(a) of C.I. 47, which empowers the court to strike out parties who have been improperly or unnecessarily included in proceedings.
They further argue that the central questions in the case, whether the will is valid and whether the grant of administration should be revoked, can be fully determined without their involvement.
“A will is not pronounced invalid against solicitors, nor is a grant revoked against lawyers,” the submission stated, adding that only the administrators of the estate have the legal authority to answer such claims.
Addressing allegations of conflict of interest against Esine Okudzeto, the respondents argue that her status as a named beneficiary under the will does not disqualify her from acting as counsel. They note that, in law, a beneficiary acquires no legal interest in estate property until a vesting assent is executed.
They also reject claims of intermeddling, citing Supreme Court authority that such offences are criminal in nature and cannot be pursued through civil proceedings.
The assertion that “the 3rd Defendant, operating from the 2nd Defendant’s law firm and acting in concert with the 4th and 5th Defendants, initially undervalued both NCR House and the Jet House properties for estate duty purposes at GHC200,000.00 and later amended the value to GHC2,000,000.00…” was denied.
Also rejected was a similar allegation that the Defendants, again acting in concert, reduced the valuation of the NCR House from GHC750,000.00 to GHC250,000.00.
According to Peter they undervaluation was done “in order to evade estate duty and inheritance taxes in both Ghana and the United Kingdom.
The respondents further dismiss assertions that their removal from the suit would hinder the court’s ability to deliver justice, describing the argument as “legally untenable”. They maintain that the presence of the administrators alone is sufficient for the effective determination of the dispute.
“The rules of joinder are not driven by allegations but by necessity,” the submission emphasised, arguing that allowing parties to be joined merely on the basis of accusations would undermine procedural discipline.
The Court of Appeal is expected to determine whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in striking out the respondents, a decision that could significantly shape the course of the ongoing probate litigation.
The respondents have urged the appellate court to dismiss the appeal in its entirety, insisting that the High Court’s ruling was “sound, principled and firmly grounded in law.”
