Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. Credit: JSTOR Daily
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 dismissing the hospital’s arguments that the cremation of the deceased’s body deprived the coroner of jurisdiction to conduct the inquest and that the order 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 coroner’s decision to proceed with the inquiry.
Nkanu died on January 7, 2026, following medical procedures, and 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 deceased’s body meant there would be no corpse 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 the deceased was treated before his death.
However, Justice Opesanwo said the coroner’s decision to conduct the inquest was based on a statutory obligation rather than the exercise of discretion.
The judge said, “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.”
She held that the applicant had not disproved the conditions that empowered the coroner to conduct the inquest under Section 15 of the Coroners System Law of Lagos State 2007.
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 stipulate that the deceased’s body must remain within the coroner’s district on the date the inquest was held.
Justice Opesanwo also rejected the argument that the cremation of the body would make the inquest speculative and compromise its outcome.
She said, “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.”
The judge noted that the inquest had yet to commence formally, making the hospital’s concerns about its eventual outcome premature.
“What is obvious is that the applicant is concerned with future occurrences, which is the outcome of the inquest,” she said.
Justice Opesanwo explained that a coroner’s inquest was a fact-finding exercise intended to establish who died, how the person died, when the death occurred and where it occurred.
“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 or accusatorial.
The judge said the inquest was not designed to apportion blame or penalise any party but to establish the facts surrounding a death.
On the hospital’s complaint about the order in which evidence would be received, Justice Opesanwo held that the coroner had the discretion to determine the sequence of statements and evidence presented during the proceedings.
She said the exercise of such discretion did not amount to a breach of fair hearing simply because a party disagreed with the order 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 added that the fact that another person might have acted differently did not automatically invalidate the coroner’s decision.
The judge further emphasised 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 said the hospital’s application was based on a misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of a coroner’s inquiry.
She held that the preliminary objections raised by the respondents succeeded and consequently struck out the substantive application.