The Lagos State High Court sitting at 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 ruled on October 12, 2026, that the coroner was legally required to conduct the inquest and that the subsequent cremation of the deceased’s body did not extinguish the court’s authority to proceed with the inquiry.
The judge described a coroner’s inquest as a statutory fact-finding exercise intended to establish the circumstances surrounding a death, rather than a trial to determine criminal or civil liability.
The ruling followed proceedings on September 28, 2026, when the court heard arguments from the parties and adjourned the matter until October 12 for its decision.
Why Euracare Challenged the Inquest
Eurapharma Care Services Nigeria Limited had approached the court to challenge the jurisdiction of the coroner, Atinuke Adetunji, and seek a judicial review of the ongoing proceedings.
The hospital argued that the absence of the deceased’s body within the coroner’s district deprived the coroner of the jurisdiction to conduct the inquest, particularly after the body had been cremated.
It also challenged the coroner’s decision to receive statements and evidence from medical personnel and other witnesses associated with the facilities where the deceased received treatment before hearing from other interested parties.
According to the hospital, the sequence could violate its constitutional right to a fair hearing by requiring it to present evidence before knowing the precise evidence that other parties intended to introduce against it.
The hospital consequently sought to have the coroner’s proceedings quashed.
The respondents included 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.
Court Says Inquest Is a Statutory Duty
In rejecting the hospital’s arguments, Justice Opesanwo held that the application was based on a misunderstanding of the legal nature and purpose of a coroner’s inquest.
The judge referred to preliminary meetings held by the coroner on January 21 and February 28, 2026, during which the proceedings were described as inquisitorial rather than adversarial.
She explained that the coroner’s role was to establish the facts surrounding the death by examining relevant evidence and seeking answers from interested parties.
“It is not a trial; no one is on trial in a coroner’s court,” the judge said.
Justice Opesanwo relied on Section 15 of the Coroners System Law of Lagos State, 2007, which sets out circumstances in which an inquest must be conducted.
The provision states that a coroner shall hold an inquest when informed that a person whose death occurred under specified circumstances died within the coroner’s district.
According to the judge, the provision makes an inquest compulsory once the statutory conditions have been met, leaving the coroner without discretion to decline to conduct the inquiry.
“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 said.
The judge added that the hospital had not disproved the circumstances that triggered the coroner’s jurisdiction.
Cremation Does Not Automatically End Coroner’s Jurisdiction
The court also rejected Euracare’s argument that the cremation of the deceased’s body invalidated the inquest.
The hospital had contended that the coroner could not continue with the proceedings because the body was no longer within the district.
In its written address, the hospital argued that proceeding without the body would render the inquiry invalid and leave the court without jurisdiction.
It also maintained that the absence of the body meant a post-mortem examination could not be conducted, potentially leaving the inquiry to rely on speculation and conjecture in determining the cause of death.
However, Justice Opesanwo distinguished between the statutory provisions governing deaths occurring within a coroner’s district and those relating to bodies discovered within a particular jurisdiction.
She also referred to Section 20 of the Coroners System Law, which provides that a coroner within whose jurisdiction a body is found must hold an inquest, even where the cause of death occurred elsewhere.
The judge explained that Section 20 concerns the discovery of a body within a coroner’s district, while Section 15 addresses deaths occurring within the district under specified circumstances.
According to her, neither provision supported the hospital’s argument that the deceased’s body had to remain within the district on the date of the inquest.
She held that the coroner’s jurisdiction, once established under the relevant statutory conditions, was not automatically extinguished by the subsequent cremation of the body.
Rejecting the argument that the inquiry would necessarily be speculative, the judge said she was not persuaded that cremation meant the proceedings and their eventual conclusions would be based on conjecture.
“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 directed at what might happen during the inquiry rather than an established outcome 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.
Judge Rejects Fair Hearing Argument
Euracare also challenged the coroner’s decision to receive statements and evidence from medical personnel and other interested parties in a particular sequence.
The hospital argued that being required to present its evidence before hearing the full evidence against it would violate its right to a fair hearing under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution.
Its counsel maintained that the hospital could not adequately respond to evidence it had not yet heard and would be compelled to speculate about the allegations that might subsequently emerge.
Justice Opesanwo rejected the argument, explaining that a coroner’s inquest differs from ordinary civil and criminal proceedings because it is inquisitorial rather than adversarial.
She held that the coroner had discretion to determine the order in which statements and evidence would be received, provided that the discretion was exercised in accordance with applicable legal principles.
“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.
The judge noted that disagreement with the procedure adopted by the coroner did not, in itself, establish a violation of the right to a fair hearing.
She explained that the purpose of the inquest was to establish who died, how the person died, when the death occurred, and where it occurred.
The proceedings, she added, were not designed to apportion blame or punish any of the parties involved.
Court Upholds Preliminary Objections
Justice Opesanwo said her review of the facts and records of the proceedings showed that the hospital’s application was founded on apprehension and a misconception of the nature and operation of a coroner’s court.
She acknowledged that the relative rarity of such proceedings and the limited materials available on their operation might have contributed to the hospital’s concerns.
“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 respondents challenging the timing of the judicial review.
The respondents argued that the application was premature because the inquest had not formally commenced or reached a conclusion capable of being reviewed by the High Court.
Justice Opesanwo upheld the preliminary objections filed by six respondents and struck out Eurapharma Care Services Nigeria Limited’s substantive application seeking to prevent the inquest from proceeding.
The ruling clears the way for the coroner’s inquiry to continue, with the central task remaining the establishment of the circumstances surrounding the death of Nkanu Esege.
