…..Confusion grips judicial officers after 7-day ultimatum
The docket in a contentious inheritance fraud case involving former Ghana Bar Association (GBA) President, Sam Okudzeto, and his half-brother, Peter Kweku Okudzeto, has reportedly gone missing from the Registry of the High Court in Accra, triggering confusion among court officials and raising fresh concerns about the handling of the litigation.
Information reaching The Herald indicates that officials at the High Court have been scrambling to locate the docket following a strongly worded letter from lawyers representing Peter Okudzeto and his siblings, demanding that the case be listed for trial in accordance with a decision delivered by the Court of Appeal on June 25, 2026.
According to information gathered by The Herald, the search for the docket began after the Registry received the letter from Kpatsa & Associates, the law firm representing Peter Okudzeto, on Wednesday, November 11, 2026.
However, by the close of business on Thursday, November 12, the docket had reportedly not been located, despite efforts by court officials to establish its whereabouts.
Sources familiar with the development disclosed that the docket had allegedly been collected by an officer associated with the High Court Registry from the court previously presided over by Justice Akosua Dansoa Asiama Christopher.
The officer is said to have signed for the docket, thereby creating an administrative record of its movement. However, according to the sources, questions about the subsequent whereabouts of the docket have not produced a satisfactory explanation.
It remains unclear whether the docket has been misplaced, transferred to another court office or retained by an officer without the necessary administrative documentation.
The Herald is still following up the circumstances surrounding the docket’s disappearance, and will update readers if recovered.
The development comes amid growing frustration among the plaintiffs’ lawyers over what they describe as an unjustified delay by the High Court Registry in facilitating the commencement of the substantive trial.
Kpatsa & Associates has given the Registrar of the High Court’s Probate Division seven days to take the necessary administrative steps to set the case down for trial, warning that failure to act would compel the firm to petition the Chief Justice and formally report the matter to the Judicial Secretary.
In a letter dated November 10, 2026, and addressed to the Registrar of the High Court, Probate Division, Accra, the lawyers accused the Registry of frustrating the administration of justice by failing to give effect to the Court of Appeal’s decision.
The letter, titled “Third (3rd) and Final Reminder and Demand to Set Case Down for Trial Following Court of Appeal Decision – Suit No. PA/0797/2025 – Peter Okudzeto vs Sam Okudzeto & 4 Ors”, bears an official receiving stamp dated November 11, 2026.
The correspondence constitutes the third formal demand by the plaintiff’s lawyers that the Registry take steps to bring the case before the High Court for trial.
According to the firm, earlier communications requesting the commencement of proceedings have failed to produce the necessary administrative action.
“This letter serves as our third (3rd) and final demand, following our previous communications, requesting that the Registry of this Honourable Court immediately set this matter down for trial and allow it to proceed to its logical conclusion pursuant to the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on the 25th of June, 2026,” the lawyers stated.
The firm maintained that the continued failure to list the matter for trial amounted to an unjustified administrative delay and an obstruction to the plaintiff’s efforts to have the dispute determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.
It further argued that the Registry had neither judicial nor statutory authority to prevent proceedings from continuing where no subsisting court order had directed a stay.
“We state unequivocally that the continuous administrative delay and failure by the Registry to set this case down for trial constitutes an unjustified de facto stay of proceedings,” the letter stated.
The lawyers emphasized that the Registry lacked the judicial or statutory power to grant, impose or enforce a stay of proceedings in any matter pending before the High Court.
Central to the complaint is the lawyers’ contention that the filing of an appeal by the defendants does not, in itself, prevent the High Court from proceeding with the substantive matter.
They argued that, in the absence of an express court order staying the proceedings, the Registry remained obligated to facilitate the hearing of the case.
“As a matter of settled law, the mere filing of a Notice of Appeal by the Defendants does not operate as an automatic stay of execution or proceedings,” the firm asserted.
The lawyers maintained that the absence of a subsisting order staying the proceedings imposed a duty on the Registry to give effect to the directions of the Court of Appeal and to allow the matter to proceed before the High Court.
Their complaint raises questions about the distinction between the administrative responsibilities of court registries and the judicial powers reserved for judges under Ghana’s legal system.
In support of their demand, Kpatsa & Associates invoked Order 1 Rule 1(2) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47), which requires the rules to be interpreted and applied in a manner that promotes the speedy and effective administration of justice.
The provision emphasizes the need to avoid unnecessary delays and expenses while ensuring that disputes are determined fairly and expeditiously.
According to the lawyers, the continued administrative delay in listing the matter for trial undermines the objectives of the procedural rules and prevents the plaintiff from pursuing his claims before the court.
They also invoked the Latin legal maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium, meaning that it is in the public interest that litigation should come to an end.
The firm argued that keeping the trial in abeyance without judicial authorization undermined this fundamental principle and frustrated the orderly administration of justice.
The lawyers have consequently issued a seven-day ultimatum to the Registry to take appropriate administrative action.
They warned that if no action was taken, or no written communication confirming that the matter had been set down for trial was received within seven days of receipt of the letter, they would escalate the matter without further notice.
The firm outlined two intended courses of action.
First, it would petition the Chief Justice of the Republic of Ghana over what it described as administrative misconduct and deliberate stalling of the court’s processes, requesting appropriate administrative intervention and redress.
Second, it would formally report the Registrar of the High Court to the Judicial Secretary for alleged improper conduct in suppressing the progress of the trial.
“Take notice that this is our final demand,” the letter warned before outlining the consequences of the Registry’s failure to act.
The lawyers expressed the hope that the Registry would act swiftly to avert the proposed measures.
The correspondence was signed on behalf of Kpatsa & Associates by Andreas Fiadome, with copies addressed to the Judicial Secretary at the Supreme Court Buildings in Accra and the Court Manager of the High Court, Law Court Complex, Accra.
The letter bears the official receiving stamp of the High Court in Accra, indicating that it had been submitted to the court’s administrative office.
The seven-day ultimatum places the Registry under renewed pressure to account for the progress of the case and clarify the circumstances surrounding the delay.
The reported inability of court officials to locate the docket could further complicate efforts to bring the matter before a judge.
However, it remains unclear whether the Registry has formally declared the docket missing or initiated any internal administrative inquiry into its whereabouts.
The latest development adds another dimension to the longstanding inheritance dispute between Peter Okudzeto and his half-brother, Sam Okudzeto, and four other defendants, including the law firm of Sam Okudzeto & Associates, Esine Okudzeto, Charles Noble Doe Acolatse and Eric Akwetey Siaw-Sappore.
The substantive action, pending before the High Court’s Probate Division, concerns allegations of inheritance fraud, forgery, intermeddling in the estates of deceased persons, and the alleged undervaluation of properties belonging to the estates of the late Baby Angelina Mamle Siaw Sappore and the late Dr Daniel Narh Siaw.
The two deceased persons were reportedly clients of Sam Okudzeto’s law firm.
Peter Okudzeto, who is pursuing the action on his own behalf and on behalf of Thomas Sekou and Felicia Sekou, two other children of the late Christiana Aku Siaw Sappor, has accused the defendants of engaging in transactions that allegedly deprived legitimate beneficiaries of their inheritance.
Among the allegations are the purported forgery of a Will and the alleged unlawful interference with properties belonging to the deceased persons’ estates.
The plaintiffs further allege that one of the disputed properties was assigned to Esine Okudzeto, although they maintain that she is not a member of the Siaw Sappor family and has no legitimate entitlement to the property.
The plaintiffs are also seeking an order compelling Eric Akwetey Siaw Sappor and Charles Noble Doe Acolatse, identified in the proceedings as the fourth and fifth defendants, respectively, to return letters of administration granted in July 2024 to the Probate Registry.
Peter Okudzeto maintains that Sam Okudzeto and his daughter have no entitlement to the disputed properties beyond any legitimate professional fees that may be due to Sam Okudzeto’s law firm.
Sam Okudzeto, a senior legal practitioner, is a former President of the Ghana Bar Association, a former lecturer in Legal Ethics at the Ghana School of Law and a former member of the Council of State.
The case has already attracted the attention of the Court of Appeal, whose decision of June 25, 2026, is now at the centre of the dispute over the High Court Registry’s handling of the proceedings.
Peter’s lawyers, including Eli Ahu, maintain that the appellate court’s decision provides the legal basis for the substantive trial to proceed. However, the Registry’s alleged failure to list the matter, coupled with reports that the docket cannot be located, has prompted the plaintiff’s legal representatives to threaten administrative action at the highest level of the Judiciary.
The reported disappearance of the docket raises questions about the management and movement of court records, particularly in a case involving serious allegations of fraud and disputed inheritance rights.
Court dockets contain pleadings, applications, judicial orders, correspondence and other records necessary for the proper management and determination of cases.
Their availability is essential to the efficient administration of justice, particularly where proceedings have already been considered by an appellate court.
The circumstances under which the docket was allegedly collected from the Registry, the identity of the officer who signed for it and its subsequent movement are therefore matters that may require administrative clarification.
It is not yet clear whether the officer who reportedly collected the docket has been formally questioned by the relevant court authorities or whether the Registry has taken steps to reconstruct any missing records.
Equally unclear is whether the defendants have obtained any subsequent court order affecting the proceedings or whether the Registry has provided the plaintiff’s lawyers with an explanation for the delay.
