Lagos High Court Dismisses Hospital’s Suit Seeking To Stop Inquest Adichie’s Son’s Death

A Lagos State High Court sitting in Ikeja on Monday dismissed an application filed by Euracare Multi-Specialist Hospital seeking to halt a coroner’s inquest into the death of Nkanu Esege, the 21-month-old son of renowned author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie and her husband, Ivara Esege.

Delivering judgment, Justice Aishat Opesanwo struck out the originating motion for writs of Certiorari and Prohibition, holding that the hospital’s suit was predicated on a fundamental misconception of the nature, jurisdiction, and working of a coroner’s court.

In her ruling, Justice Opesanwo established several critical findings. She held that under Section 15(2) of the Lagos State Coroner’s System Law 2007, an inquest is compulsory for a death in custody occurring within a medical facility. The judge rejected the hospital’s argument that the cremation and absence of the child’s body stripped the coroner of jurisdiction, clarifying that location at the time of death, rather than the physical presence of a corpse during proceedings, confers authority.

Furthermore, Justice Opesanwo stressed that a coroner’s court is a fact-finding inquiry to establish who, how, when, and where a death occurred, rather than a criminal or civil trial to apportion blame or penalise parties.

Nkanu Esege tragically passed away on 7 January 2026 at Euracare Multi-Specialist Hospital in Lagos. Following his death, his parents accused the hospital of gross medical negligence, alleging that an excessive dose of sedatives and a denial of oxygen led to cardiac arrest. The hospital has maintained that the child arrived critically ill and received care consistent with standard medical protocols.

Following the activation of a coroner’s inquest by the Lagos State Government to enquire into the circumstances surrounding the toddler’s death, Euracare approached the High Court to halt the proceedings. The hospital argued that conducting an inquest without a body for post-mortem analysis would yield speculative conclusions and waste state resources. They also contended that directing medical staff to present evidence first violated the hospital’s constitutional right to a fair hearing under Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution.

Addressing the hospital’s objections, Justice Opesanwo clarified that a coroner’s court does not operate under strict rules of evidence or traditional trial procedures where a burden of proof is assigned.

“A coroner’s inquest is a fact-finding inquiry… It is not a trial. No one is on trial in a coroner’s court. Unlike other courts—whether civil or criminal—there is no claimant, prosecution, or defence,” Justice Opesanwo stated.

The court further ruled that the coroner enjoys full statutory discretion over the sequence in which witness statements and evidence are taken and that judicial review cannot be used to truncate a process mandated by state law.

With the High Court’s dismissal of the application, the coroner’s inquest into the toddler’s death is now expected to formally proceed.