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 Nigerian author Chimamanda Adichie.
Justice Aishat Opesanwo struck out the application after rejecting the hospital’s arguments that the cremation of the deceased’s body deprived the coroner of jurisdiction to conduct the inquest and that an order on the sequence for receiving evidence breached 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, prompting an investigation into the circumstances surrounding his death.
In its application, Euracare challenged the coroner’s jurisdiction, arguing that the cremation meant the body would no longer be 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 had been treated before his death.
However, Justice Opesanwo said the decision to conduct an inquest was based on a statutory obligation rather than the exercise of discretion.
“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.
She held that the hospital had failed to disprove 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 require the deceased’s body to remain within the coroner’s district on the date the inquest was held.
Justice Opesanwo also rejected the argument that cremation would make the proceedings speculative and compromise their outcome.
“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,” she said.
The judge noted that the inquest had yet to commence formally, describing the hospital’s concerns about its eventual outcome as premature.
“What is obvious is that the applicant is concerned with future occurrences, which is the outcome of the inquest,” she added.
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 took place.
“It is not a trial; no one is on trial in a coroner’s court,” she said, emphasising that the process was inquisitorial rather than adversarial or accusatory.
According to the judge, the purpose of the inquest was not to apportion blame or punish any party but to establish the facts surrounding the 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 in which statements and evidence would be presented.
She said the exercise of that 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 adopted a different approach did not automatically invalidate the coroner’s decision.
The judge further noted 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 held that the hospital’s application was based on a misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of a coroner’s inquiry.
She consequently upheld the preliminary objections raised by the respondents and struck out Euracare’s substantive application.
