The Lagos State High Court sitting in Osborne Foreshore, Ikoyi, has 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 Nigerian author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie.
Justice Aishat Opesanwo struck out the application on Monday after rejecting the hospital’s arguments that the cremation of the deceased’s body deprived the coroner of jurisdiction and that the procedure for receiving evidence breached 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.
His death prompted an investigation into the circumstances surrounding his demise.
In its application, Euracare challenged the coroner’s jurisdiction, arguing that the cremation of the body meant a post-mortem examination could no longer be conducted.
The hospital also objected to the coroner’s decision to receive statements and evidence from medical personnel and other parties connected to the facilities where Nkanu received treatment before his death.
However, Justice Opesanwo said the decision to conduct an inquest was based on a statutory obligation, not discretion.
She held that the hospital had failed to disprove the conditions required under Section 15 of the Coroners System Law of Lagos State 2007 for the coroner to conduct the inquiry.
According to the judge, the hospital’s argument 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 explained that the law did not require the body to remain within the coroner’s district on the date of the inquest.
The judge also rejected the argument that cremation would make the inquiry speculative, describing concerns about its eventual outcome as premature because the inquest had yet to formally begin.
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, adding that the process was inquisitorial rather than adversarial.
She stressed that the purpose of the inquest was not to apportion blame or punish any party but to establish the facts surrounding the death.
On the hospital’s complaint about the order in which evidence would be received, the judge held that the coroner had the discretion to determine the sequence of statements and evidence presented.
She said disagreement with the order adopted did not automatically amount to a breach of fair hearing.
The judge further noted that the rules of evidence and procedure applicable to ordinary civil proceedings did not apply in the same way to a coroner’s inquest.
Justice Opesanwo held that the hospital’s application was based on a misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of the inquiry. She consequently upheld the respondents’ preliminary objections and struck out the substantive application.
