The Lagos State High Court sitting in Osborne Foreshore, Ikoyi, on Monday struck out an application by Eurapharma Care Services Nigeria Limited, operators of Euracare Multi-Specialist Hospital, seeking to stop the coroner’s inquest into the death of Nkanu Esege, son of celebrated Nigerian author Chimamanda Adichie.
Justice Aishat Opesanwo struck out the application after rejecting the hospital’s arguments that the cremation of the deceased’s body deprived the coroner of jurisdiction and that the planned sequence for receiving evidence violated its right to a fair hearing.
The judge held that the inquest was required by law and that the absence of the deceased’s body did not, in itself, invalidate the decision to proceed with the inquiry.
Nkanu died on January 7, 2026, following medical procedures, prompting an investigation into the circumstances surrounding his death.
In its application, Euracare challenged the coroner’s jurisdiction, arguing that the cremation meant the body would not be available for a post-mortem examination. The hospital also objected to the coroner’s decision to receive statements and evidence from medical personnel and other parties associated with the facilities where Nkanu was treated.
However, Justice Opesanwo held that Section 15 of the Coroners System Law of Lagos State 2007 imposed a statutory obligation to conduct an inquest when a death met any of the specified conditions within the coroner’s district.
She explained that the hospital had focused on the location of the deceased’s body at the time of the inquest rather than the circumstances that initially triggered the coroner’s jurisdiction. She added that the law did not require the body to remain within the coroner’s district when the inquiry was held.
The judge also rejected the argument that cremation would make the inquest speculative, describing the concern as premature because the proceedings had yet to formally commence.
Justice Opesanwo explained that a coroner’s inquest was a fact-finding exercise intended to establish who died, how and when the death occurred, and where it happened.
“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 and was not intended to apportion blame or penalise any party.
On the hospital’s objection to the sequence for receiving evidence, the judge held that the coroner had the discretion to determine how statements and evidence would be presented.
She ruled that disagreement with the order adopted did not automatically amount to a breach of the right to a fair hearing, adding that the rules of evidence and procedure applicable to ordinary civil proceedings did not apply in the same manner to a coroner’s inquest.
Justice Opesanwo concluded that the hospital’s application was based on a misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of a coroner’s inquiry. She upheld the respondents’ preliminary objections and struck out the substantive application.