The Lagos State High Court sitting in Ikoyi has dismissed an application by Eurapharma Care Services Nigeria Limited, operators of Euracare Multi-Specialist Hospital, seeking to halt the coroner’s inquest into the death of Nkanu Esege, son of renowned Nigerian author Chimamanda Adichie.
Justice Aishat Opesanwo, sitting at the court in Osborne Foreshore, struck out the application on Monday after rejecting the hospital’s arguments challenging the coroner’s jurisdiction and the procedure for receiving evidence.
Euracare had argued that the cremation of the deceased’s body made it impossible to conduct a post-mortem examination, thereby depriving the coroner of the authority to proceed with the inquiry. It also alleged that the planned reception of statements and evidence from medical personnel and other parties involved in the deceased’s treatment violated its right to a fair hearing.
However, the judge ruled that the inquest was a legal requirement and that the absence of the deceased’s body did not invalidate the proceedings.
Nkanu died on January 7, 2026, following medical procedures, prompting an investigation into the circumstances surrounding his death.
In her ruling, Justice Opesanwo held that the coroner was mandated by law to conduct an inquest where the circumstances surrounding a death met the conditions stipulated under Section 15 of the Coroners System Law of Lagos State 2007.
“The provision gives no room for exercise of discretion in the decision to conduct an inquest once a death results from any one of the nine situations specified, and that it occurs within the area designated as the coroner’s district.”
The judge said Euracare had failed to establish that the statutory conditions authorising the inquest had not been met.
She explained that the hospital’s objection centred on the location of the deceased’s remains when the inquiry was to take place, rather than the circumstances that originally brought the death within the coroner’s jurisdiction.
According to her, the law did not require the deceased’s body to remain within the coroner’s district when the inquest was conducted.
Justice Opesanwo also dismissed the hospital’s claim that the cremation would render the inquiry speculative and undermine its findings.
READ ALSO: Coroner Orders Inquest Into Author Adichie’s Son’s Death
“I am not persuaded by the submission made by the applicant’s counsel that the cremation of the body means the inquest and its conclusion will be predicated on speculation and conjecture.”
She noted that the inquest had not formally commenced, describing the hospital’s concerns about its eventual findings as premature.
“What is obvious is that the applicant is concerned with future occurrences, which is the outcome of the inquest,” she said.
The judge explained that the purpose of a coroner’s inquest was to establish the identity of the deceased, the circumstances, time and place of death.
“It is not a trial; no one is on trial in a coroner’s court,” she said, stressing that the process was inquisitorial rather than adversarial or accusatorial.
She added that the proceedings were intended to establish the facts surrounding a death, not to determine culpability or impose punishment on any party.
On the hospital’s objection to the order in which evidence would be presented, Justice Opesanwo held that the coroner had the authority to determine the sequence for receiving statements and testimony.
She maintained that the exercise of this power did not constitute a breach of fair hearing merely because a party disagreed with the procedure adopted.
“The fact that the exercise of this discretion is still required to be guided by some principles does not impeach the independence of the person vested with the discretionary prerogative to exercise that discretion,” the judge said.
She further noted that a decision would not become invalid simply because another person might have exercised the discretion differently.
Justice Opesanwo also clarified that the evidential and procedural rules governing ordinary civil cases did not apply in the same way to coroner’s inquests.
The judge consequently upheld the respondents’ preliminary objections and struck out Euracare’s substantive application, describing the hospital’s challenge as being founded on a misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of a coroner’s inquiry.