Adichie Son's Death Probe: Lagos Court Rejects Hospital's Effort to Halt

The Lagos State High Court, situated at Osborne Foreshore in Ikoyi, on Monday, dismissed an application filed by Eurapharma Care Services Nigeria Limited, the company operating Euracare Multi-Specialist Hospital. The hospital sought to prevent the coroner's inquest into the demise of Nkanu Esege, the son of renowned Nigerian author Chimamanda Adichie. Justice Aishat Opesanwo delivered the judgment, striking out the application after rejecting the hospital's arguments. Euracare had contended that the cremation of the deceased's body removed the coroner's jurisdiction to conduct the inquiry and that the directive to gather evidence violated its right to a fair hearing.

The judge affirmed that the inquest is a legal requirement and that the absence of the deceased's physical body does not, in itself, nullify the coroner's decision to proceed with the investigation. Nkanu Esege passed away on January 7, 2026, following medical procedures, prompting an inquiry into the events surrounding his death.

In its application, Euracare challenged the coroner's authority, asserting that the cremation meant there would be no corpse available for a post-mortem examination. The hospital also raised objections to the coroner's decision to obtain statements and evidence from medical staff and other individuals connected to the facilities where the deceased received treatment prior to his passing. However, Justice Opesanwo clarified that the coroner's decision to conduct the inquest stemmed from a statutory obligation, not from the exercise of discretion.

The judge stated, “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 further ruled that the applicant had failed to disprove the conditions empowering the coroner to conduct the inquest under Section 15 of the Coroners System Law of Lagos State 2007. According to Justice Opesanwo, 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 elaborated that the law does not mandate that the deceased’s body must remain within the coroner’s district on the date the inquest is held.

Justice Opesanwo also rejected the assertion that the cremation of the body would render the inquest speculative and compromise its outcome. She declared, “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 pointed out that the inquest had not yet formally begun, making the hospital's concerns about its eventual findings premature. “What is obvious is that the applicant is concerned with future occurrences, which is the outcome of the inquest,” she remarked. Justice Opesanwo explained that a coroner’s inquest serves as a fact-finding mission to ascertain the identity of the deceased, the cause of death, when it occurred, and where it happened. “It is not a trial; no one is on trial in a coroner’s court,” she clarified, adding that the process is inquisitorial, focusing on inquiry, rather than adversarial or accusatorial.

The judge emphasized that the inquest is not designed to assign blame or impose penalties on any party but solely to establish the facts surrounding a death. Regarding the hospital's complaint about the order in which evidence would be received, Justice Opesanwo maintained that the coroner has the discretion to determine the sequence of statements and evidence presented during the proceedings. She stated that exercising such discretion does not amount to a breach of fair hearing simply because a party disagrees with the adopted order. “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 asserted. She further added that the fact that another person might have acted differently does not automatically invalidate the coroner’s decision.

Justice Opesanwo further stressed that the rules of evidence and procedure applicable to standard civil proceedings do not apply in the same manner to a coroner’s inquest. She concluded that the hospital’s application was based on a misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of a coroner’s inquiry. Consequently, she upheld the preliminary objections raised by the respondents and struck out the substantive application.