…..Supreme Court asked to strike out appeal in inheritance fraud case
Legal practitioner Peter Kweku Okudzeto is asking the Supreme Court to strike out the appeal proceedings, citing a conflict of interest involving Sam Okudzeto & Associates, a law firm, and a lawyer representing Sam Okudzeto, his daughter Esine Okudzeto, and their law firm, as well as two others, in an ongoing estate dispute.
Peter, a half-brother of Sam, a former Council of State Member and one-time President of the Ghana Bar Association (GBA), argued that Sam Okudzeto & Associates and Isaac Ofosu-Boateng previously acted for the very estates at the centre of the litigation.
Peter alleges forgery and inheritance fraud against the 91-year-old and his daughter, Esine, both lecturers in the Law of Ethics at the Ghana School of Law, insisting that they had no blood relation to his mother’s side from Ada in the Dangme East District of the Greater Accra Region, therefore, they could not be beneficiaries of her estate and of her deceased siblings.
In a supplementary affidavit seen by The Herald, Peter opposed Sam’s application seeking the rectification of a record of appeal and an extension of time. Peter contends that the alleged conflict renders Sam, his daughter, and the other applicants’ motion incompetent and constitutes an abuse of the court’s process.
More Read
Peter also believes that his brother, Sam, and his daughter are simply wasting the court’s time instead of responding to the inheritance fraud and intermeddling case, which the Court of Appeal described as “grave allegations” and asked them to address.
He is asking the court to admit the supplementary affidavit and its accompanying exhibits, along with an earlier affidavit in opposition filed on October 6, 2026.
The supplementary affidavit, sworn on 7 October 2026, presents what Peter describes as new information and documentary evidence concerning the conduct of Isaac Ofosu-Boateng and Sam Okudzeto & Associates, also known as Sena Chambers.
According to Peter, both the lawyer and the firm have previously acted and continue to hold themselves out as legal representatives of the Estate of Angelina Siaw Sappore and the Estate of Dr Daniel Narh Siaw, which are the subjects of the substantive suit and appeal.
He argues that their alleged representation of the applicants, whose interests he considers adverse to those of the estates, raises serious questions about their professional obligations and the validity of the processes they have filed.
Peter attached three crucial documents to support his allegations.
The first is a letter dated April 22, 2024, addressed to all beneficiaries of the Estate of Angelina Siaw Sappore and signed by Mr. Ofosu-Boateng.
According to the affidavit, Mr. Ofosu-Boateng signed the letter in his capacity as the estate’s lawyer and convened a meeting of the beneficiaries to discuss the estate’s distribution, sharing, and winding-up, as well as outstanding legal fees.
The letter has been attached to the affidavit as Exhibit PK6.
The second document is a letter dated March 5, 2025, with reference number EO/IOB/MOOA/5/03/2025, from Sam Okudzeto & Associates to Peter.
The affidavit states that the firm expressly indicated in the letter that it had been appointed by Charles Noble Acolatse and Eric Akwetey Siaw-Sappore to represent the beneficiaries of Dr. Narh’s estate and the children of Eric Teye Akwetey Siaw.
The letter has been attached as Exhibit PK7.
The third document is a legal opinion dated December 10, 2014, with reference number NAOA/IOB/12/14, authored by the now-retired Supreme Court Justice Nene Amegatcher and addressed to the administrators of the Estate of Baby Angelina Mamle Siaw Sappore.
According to Peter, Justice Amegatcher’s opinion addressed the Ada system of inheritance in the case of Eric Tei Akwetey Siaw & 2 Others v. Tetteh Siaw Sappore & Another.
Interestingly, Justice Amegatcher is back practicing at Sam Okudzeto & Associates.
He states that Mr. Amegatcher, who previously supervised Mr. Ofosu-Boateng before Mr. Ofosu-Boateng’s appointment to the Supreme Court, handed the matter over to Mr. Ofosu-Boateng after his elevation to the bench.
The opinion has been attached as Exhibit PK8.
Peter argues that the documents demonstrate that the law firm has represented the Estate of Angelina Siaw Sappore since 2014, initially through Mr Amegatcher and subsequently through Mr Ofosu-Boateng.
He alleges that the same firm and lawyer are now pursuing an application on behalf of parties whose interests are adverse to those of the estates they were previously retained to represent.
In the affidavit, Peter maintains that the estates referenced in the exhibits are directly connected to the substantive litigation and the appeal.
He states that he and his siblings are beneficiaries of the Estate of Angelina Siaw Sappore through their late mother, Christiana Aku Siaw Sappor.
He further alleges that the applicants’ interests conflict with those of the estates over assets they are accused of intermeddling with, undervaluing and diverting.
These allegations form part of Peter’s arguments in opposition to the applicants’ motion and are yet to be established by the court.
Citing Rules 20, 21, 22, 31 and 89 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Rules, 2020 (L.I. 2423), Peter argues that lawyers are prohibited from acting in circumstances involving conflicts of interest, including representing parties whose interests are materially adverse to those of former clients in the same or substantially related matters.
He also contends that a lawyer cannot represent opposing interests in the same dispute or allow personal interests to conflict with professional duties.
Peter further relies on the Supreme Court decision in Madam Akosua Adade v Okesseku Mintah [TLP-SC-2026-17], which he says was delivered on 22 April 2026.
According to the affidavit, the decision supports his contention that a breach of professional obligations arising from a conflict of interest may warrant the invalidation of court processes filed by the lawyer concerned and the removal of the lawyer’s name from the proceedings as counsel.
On that basis, he argues that his half-brother’s motion should be struck out and dismissed.
“That Exhibit PK8 shows that the 2nd Defendant/Applicant firm has been the lawyer for the Estate of Angelina Siaw Sappore since 2014 – first through Nene Amegatcher Esq. and, after his elevation to the Supreme Court, through Isaac Ofosu-Boateng Esq. to date. That same firm and lawyer now prosecute this motion for the Applicants, whose interests are adverse to the very estates they were retained to protect. Madam Akosua Adade v. Okesseku Mintah [TLP-SC-2026-17 is direct authority that a lawyer who acts in such a conflict cannot have his processes sustained: the Court should invalidate the processes filed and strike out his name as counsel. The conflict here is not incidental; it is patent on the face of the record. Hence the need for this application”.
Peterfiled his initial affidavit in opposition on 6 October 2026, following the applicants’ motion filed on 25 September 2026.
He says the supplementary affidavit became necessary after additional information and documents came to his attention, which he considers material to determining whether the applicants’ motion is competent.
He intends to seek leave of the court to have the supplementary affidavit and its exhibits admitted and read together with the earlier affidavit in opposition.
He argues that admitting the additional evidence would assist the court in determining the application fairly and protecting the integrity of its proceedings.
Peter, who has mounted the case on his own behalf and on behalf of his two other siblings, Thomas Serou and Felicia Sekou, as the children of the late Christiana Aku Siaw Sappor, a biological sister to Angelina Siaw Sappore and Dr Daniel Narh Siaw, maintains that the Supreme Court should not permit lawyers to act for estates while simultaneously representing parties whose interests are allegedly adverse to those estates.
He says the supplementary affidavit was made in good faith and on the belief that the administration of justice must be protected against conduct that could bring it into disrepute.
