Peter Kweku Okudzeto, a half-brother of Sam Okudzeto, has filed a motion at the Accra High Court (Probate Division) seeking an order to compel two defendants to deposit Letters of Administration with Will annexed, granted in connection with the estate of the late Christiana Aku Siaw Sappor.

The case, listed as Suit No. PA/0797/2025 was initiated by Peter Kweku Okudzeto, acting on his own behalf and on behalf of two other children of the deceased, Thomas Sekou and Felicia Sekou.

The defendants include Sam Okudzeto, his daughter Esine Okudzeto, and three others. The current motion specifically targets the fourth and fifth defendants, identified as Eric Akwetey-Siaw Sappor and Charles Noble Doe Acolatse, who are clients of Sam Okudzeto, his daughter, and their law firm.

This is the matter in which the 90-year-old Sam Okudzeto has been sued by one of his father’s sons for allegedly forging documents, including a Will, to acquire prime properties belonging to his stepmother, despite having no beneficial interest.

The properties, located in various parts of the country, were allegedly undervalued by Sam, his daughter, and their law firm in some instances. The suit also refers to another of Sam’s children, Edem Kojo Doe Okudzeto, as having played a role.

In the latest application, Peter is asking the court to order the defendants to deposit Letters of Administration with Will annexed, which were granted to them on 25 July 2024 in a related probate suit (No. PA/0842/2024) concerning the estate of the late Daniel Narh Siaw.

Peter, a resident of Community 18 in the Tema West Municipality, argued that although the defendants were duly served notices on 14 July and 14 August 2025, they have failed to comply with the requirement to lodge the documents at the Probate Registry.

In an affidavit sworn on 13 November 2025, Mr Okudzeto described the defendants’ conduct as a deliberate refusal that is obstructing the smooth administration of the estate.

He warned that their continued withholding of the Letters risks compounding delays, frustrating beneficiaries, and creating fertile ground for further legal disputes.

Searches conducted at the Probate Registry and attached as exhibits to the motion confirm that the Letters were granted, but remain undeposited as of 19 September and 11 November 2025.

An earlier search of the Registry, dated 25 September 2024, shows that the Letters of Administration for the related estate of Daniel Narh Siaw were issued to the applicants in December 2024. However, the fourth and fifth defendants have not filed any responses or pleadings in the current suit.

The defendants have been served through their solicitor, Isaac Ofosu Boateng of Sam Okudzeto & Associates.

Mr Okudzeto stressed that failure to deposit Letters of Administration, once granted, can delay the probate process and undermine the court’s supervisory role under Ghanaian law.

He further stated, “I have filed a notice to deposit probate at the Registry of the Honourable Court, which was served on the fourth and fifth defendants on 14 July 2025 and 14 August 2025, respectively.”

“The fourth and fifth defendants, despite having been served, have failed, refused, or neglected to honour their obligation to deposit the Letters of Administration with Will annexed.”

He added that the continued retention of the Letters by the defendants “gravely impedes the orderly progress and fair resolution of matters before the Court” and reflects “a palpable disregard for due process”.

He argued that the withholding appears calculated to “occasion mischief and frustrate the authority of the Court by unlawfully clothing the defendants with a semblance of judicial authority to deal with or dispose of estate properties to unsuspecting third parties”, potentially leading to further litigation.

He concluded that the fourth and fifth defendants are unlikely to deposit the Letters unless compelled by a court order, or ordered to return the Letters granted on 25 July 2024 to the Registry.

The case is before Akosua Dansoa Asiamah Christopher of the Accra High Court (Probate Division), and she is expected to deliver her ruling tomorrow, Tuesday, 18 November 2025, at 9 a.m. She is to establish whether Sam Okudzeto and Esine should remain part of the case filed by Peter’s counsel, Andreas Fiadorme.

Last month, Esine Okudzeto filed an affidavit before an Accra High Court seeking to be removed as a defendant in an ongoing legal dispute concerning the estate of the late Dr Daniel Narh Siaw, who died in or around 2023.

In her affidavit, sworn on 9 October 2025, Ms Okudzeto described her inclusion in the suit as “wrong and unnecessary”, insisting that she, her father, a former President of the Ghana Bar Association and their law firm, Sam Okudzeto & Associates, had been improperly joined to the case.

According to Ms. Okudzeto, the Letters of Administration with Will annexed that form the basis of the challenge by her paternal uncle, Peter, were obtained by the fourth and fifth defendants, Eric Akwetey-Siaw Sappor and Charles Noble Doe Acolatse, whom she states are the proper parties to be sued.

However, Peter Okudzeto, a beneficiary of the estate of the late Baby Angelina Mamle Siaw Sappore, a sister of the late Dr Daniel Narh Siaw, has rejected the attempt by Sam Okudzeto, his daughter, and their law firm to evade the lawsuit, particularly the claim of forgery among other allegations levelled against them in the lawsuit.

Peter opposes the move, describing it as “not only wrongful and erroneous but also misconceived and devoid of merit”, and vows to “demonstrate that each of the Defendants personally participated in fraudulent acts and professional misconduct and therefore cannot be said to have been improperly joined to this suit”.

Peter Okudzeto, one of three children of the late Baby Angelina Mamle Siaw Sappore, states that his actions against the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants regarding the Estate are not solely based on professional negligence or misconduct in their roles as legal representatives.

“Rather, the claim rests upon acts of wilful tortious misconduct and mala fides, personally engineered and executed by each Applicant and collectively acting in concert with the 4th and 5th Defendants, thereby constituting a profound and deliberate breach of their solemn fiduciary duties owed directly to the beneficiaries of the Estate, resulting in the unlawful deprivation and dissipation of estate assets”.

Peter, also a lawyer by profession, insisted that the presence of his half-brother, his niece, and their law firm “is irreplaceable and necessary for this Suit is dual-pronged: first, the 1st Defendant’s unauthorized retention and custody of original title documents pertaining to key estate properties necessitate their joinder for the coercive recovery of these vital instruments; and second, their presence is essential to ensure the Court can fully investigate and attach personal liability arising from these concerted acts and achieve complete and effective restitution to the estate.”

He reiterated the roles undertaken by each Defendant, including acts of fraud, misrepresentation, and unlawful enrichment to the detriment of the Estate.

“…the 1st, 2nd and 3^rd Defendants/Applicants actively participated in the drafting and fabrication of a forged testamentary instrument purporting to dispose of Estate properties. The irrefutable evidence of mala fides in this act is centred on a fundamental and unassailable chronological impossibility: the purported Will, explicitly dated and executed in 2018, fraudulently includes the NCR House, a material asset which was only discovered as belonging to the Estate in the later part of 2019”.

“This profound anomaly confirms that the Defendants either deliberately inserted an asset ex post facto or backdated the entire instrument–acts which constitute clear fraud and betrayal of their professional mandate. Their presence is therefore essential for the Court to fully investigate the genesis of this deception and determine the true validity of the purported Will now under challenge”.

He insisted that “the continued joinder of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants is essential for the full and effectual determination of this Suit, as the claims against them constitute personal, wilful fraudulent misrepresentation rooted in an irreconcilable conflict of interest that fundamentally vitiates their roles as lawyers and managers of the Estate”.

“My pleadings show that the 1st Defendant, as the Head of Chambers and directing mind of the 2nd Defendant, was aware or constructively aware of a material forgery in the purported Will, specifically the inclusion of the NCR House property discovered subsequent to the Will’s execution, but wilfully turned a blind eye. This failure directly enabled the 3rd Defendant (1st Defendant’s biological daughter), who served as both the filing counsel and a direct beneficiary under the contested Will, to move the Application for the grant of Letters of Administration, thereby confirming a concerted effort to unlawfully manipulate the Estate for personal gain”.

“My pleadings, which point to the fact that there had been correspondence between the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants and the late Dr Daniel Narh Siaw, stating the actual value of the property known and called “JET HOUSE.”

“Notwithstanding this knowledge, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants, acting in concert with the 4th and 5th Defendants, grossly undervalued the said property in a deliberate attempt to evade mandatory estate duty. This fraudulent misrepresentation consequently renders the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants indispensable parties to the Suit, as their presence is required to compel the disclosure of the true value of the Estate properties and to ensure the correct quantum of estate duty is paid thereon”.

“The veracity of the averments of misconduct made against the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants can only be fully illuminated during cross-examination at the trial, based on their own correspondence in respect of the Estate–facts which the 4th and 5th Defendants are not competent to provide. The necessity of the presence of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants in this suit is further underscored by the fact that an affidavit seeking variation of the value of the NCR House was improperly deposed to by a non-valuer lawyer from the 2nd Defendant’s firm, one Edem Kojo Doe Okudzeto, Esq., who failed to state the basis of his valuation, indicating a clear pattern of professional evasion regarding proper asset valuation”.

Peter revealed that “email correspondence exchanged between Dr. Daniel Narh Siaw and Lawyer Isaac Ofosu Boateng in 2016 and 2019, in which the said Lawyer Isaac Ofosu Boateng of the 2nd Defendant’s law firm stated that the properties of the estate had not yet been vested in the beneficiaries as of 2018, clearly shows that he acted on the instructions of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants”.

The post Fresh action against Sam Okudzeto, his clients in alleged forgery & property manipulation case appeared first on The Herald ghana.

Read More