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, and her husband Dr Ivara Esege.
Justice Aishat Opesanwo, in her ruling, struck out the application after holding that the coroner was legally required to conduct the inquest and that the cremation of the deceased’s body did not invalidate the decision to proceed with the inquiry, adding that the inquiry was a statutory fact-finding exercise.
At the last proceedings on September 28, 2026, the judge adjourned the case until October 12, 2026, to rule on the application of Euracare, after taking arguments from parties in the matter.
The hospital had challenged the jurisdiction of the coroner, arguing that the absence of the deceased’s body within the coroner’s district deprived the coroner of the authority to conduct the inquest.
The hospital had dragged the coroner, Atinuke Adetunji; the Lagos Coroner’s District Court; the Chief Coroner of Lagos State; the Lagos State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Lawal Pedro (SAN); Dr Ivara Esege; Chimamanda Adichie; and Atlantis Paediatric Hospital Limited before the court over the judicial review of the proceedings.
The applicant also challenged the coroner’s decision to proceed with the inquest despite the absence of the deceased’s body from the coroner’s district following its cremation.
It also questioned the coroner’s decision to receive statements and evidence from medical personnel and other witnesses associated with the medical facility where the deceased had received treatment before hearing from other interested parties.
It also contended that the decision to receive evidence from medical personnel and other interested parties in a particular sequence violated its constitutional right to a fair hearing.
However, Justice Opesanwo held that the application was based on a misunderstanding and misconception of the nature and purpose of a coroner’s inquest.
According to her, the coroner at the preliminary meetings of January 21 and February 28, 2026, said the proceedings were inquisitorial rather than adversarial, with the coroner and other interested persons seeking answers about the circumstances surrounding the death.
The judge explained that the inquest was a fact-finding exercise designed to establish the circumstances surrounding a death, rather than a trial to determine criminal or civil liability.
“It is not a trial; no one is on trial in a coroner’s court,” she said.
In determining whether the coroner had jurisdiction, Justice Opesanwo relied on Section 15 of the Coroners System Law of Lagos State, 2007, which provides for circumstances in which an inquest must be held.
The judge quoted the provision as stating: “The coroner shall hold an inquest whenever he is informed that the death of a deceased person lying within the coroner’s district was as a result of” any of the circumstances specified in the section.
She held that the provision made an inquest compulsory where the statutory conditions were satisfied, leaving the coroner with no discretion to refuse to conduct it.
“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.
According to her, the hospital had not disproved the conditions that triggered the coroner’s jurisdiction.
Justice Opesanwo also referred to Section 20 of the law, which provides that a coroner within whose jurisdiction a body is found must hold an inquest, notwithstanding that the cause of death occurred elsewhere.
The judge quoted the provision as stating: “It shall be the duty of the coroner within whose jurisdiction a body is found to hold an inquest on it, notwithstanding that the cause of death occurred elsewhere.”
She held that Section 20 dealt with the discovery of a body within a coroner’s district, while Section 15 concerned deaths occurring within the district under specified circumstances.
According to the judge, neither provision supported the hospital’s argument that the deceased’s body had to remain within the coroner’s district on the date of the inquest.
She said the coroner’s jurisdiction arose from the statutory conditions surrounding the reported death and was not extinguished merely because the body was subsequently cremated.
Hospital argued that the absence of the body invalidated the inquest.
In its written address, counsel for Eurapharma Care Services Nigeria Limited argued that the coroner lacked jurisdiction because the deceased’s body was no longer within the district.
The judge reproduced the submission as follows: “Whereas in the instant case, the coroner’s court decided to continue with the inquest, even though the corpse of the deceased is not within the coroner’s district, the coroner’s court would be acting without jurisdiction, and consequently, the proceedings and the reason are void and liable to be quashed by this honourable court.”
Counsel further argued that the coroner’s jurisdiction had been wrongly activated because the body was not within the district.
According to the submission quoted by the judge, “There is no jurisdiction to be exercised by the coroner’s court where, as in the instant case, the body of the deceased is not within the coroner’s district.”
The hospital also maintained that the absence of the corpse meant a post-mortem examination could not be conducted, leaving the inquest vulnerable to speculation and conjecture about the actual cause of death.
However, Justice Opesanwo rejected the argument, holding that the hospital was seeking to challenge the anticipated outcome of an inquiry that had yet to commence formally.
“I am, with respect, 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 said.
The judge added that the hospital’s concerns were based on future events rather than an established decision that could be set aside.
“What is obvious is that the applicant is concerned with future occurrences, which is the outcome of the inquest,” she said.
The hospital also challenged the coroner’s decision to receive statements and evidence from medical personnel and other parties associated with the medical facilities where the deceased was treated.
Counsel argued that directing the hospital to present its evidence before hearing the evidence against it would violate its right to a fair hearing under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution.
The submission, as reproduced by the judge, was that the hospital was being required to give evidence “without first hearing and knowing the exact evidence being led against them by our accusers”.
Counsel argued that the order would deprive the hospital of its right to respond adequately to the allegations against it and compel it to speculate about the evidence that would subsequently be presented.
The judge, however, held that a coroner’s inquest was inquisitorial rather than adversarial and was not conducted in the same manner as ordinary civil or criminal proceedings.
She explained that the coroner had discretion to determine the sequence in which statements and evidence would be received.
“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,” she said.
Justice Opesanwo further held that disagreement with the coroner’s chosen procedure did not, by itself, establish a breach of fair hearing.
She said the inquest was intended to answer questions about who died, how the person died, when the death occurred and where it occurred.
The judge added that the process was not designed to apportion blame or penalise any party.
Justice Opesanwo concluded that the hospital’s application was founded on apprehension and misconception of the legal character of a coroner’s inquest.
She held that the statutory obligation to conduct the inquiry could not be defeated by arguments about the absence of the body or the order in which evidence would be presented.
“I am resolute in my view that the submission and argument of counsel are grossly misconceived,” the judge held, referring to the challenge to the coroner’s decision on the order in which evidence would be presented or received.
Justice Opesanwo said her review of the facts and records of the proceedings showed that the application was founded on a misunderstanding of the nature and operation of a coroner’s court.
She acknowledged that the rarity of such proceedings and the limited materials available on their operation might have contributed to the applicant’s apprehension.
“Having extensively reviewed the facts and the record of proceedings of actions taken thus far by the coroner, I genuinely believe that the originating motion herein was predicated on apprehension, misconception of the nature and working of a coroner’s court,” she ruled.
The court had earlier consolidated the substantive application with preliminary objections filed by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th respondents, who argued that the judicial review was premature because the inquest had not formally commenced or reached a conclusion capable of being reviewed.
The judge consequently upheld the preliminary objections filed by the six respondents and struck out the hospital’s substantive application seeking to prevent the inquest from proceeding.