Court Rejects Euracare Bid To Stop Adichie Son’s Death Inquest

A Lagos State High Court has rejected an attempt by Euracare Multi-Specialist Hospital to stop a coroner’s inquest into the death of Nkanu Esege, the son of renowned Nigerian author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, ruling that the cremation of his body does not prevent the inquiry from proceeding.

Justice Aishat Opesanwo struck out an application filed by Eurapharma Care Services Nigeria Limited, the hospital’s operator, after dismissing its arguments challenging the coroner’s jurisdiction and the procedure adopted for receiving evidence.

The ruling, delivered on Monday at the court sitting in Osborne Foreshore, Ikoyi, Lagos, clears the way for the inquest to proceed despite the absence of the deceased’s body for a possible post-mortem examination.

Nkanu died on January 7, 2026, following medical procedures, prompting an investigation into the circumstances surrounding his death.

In its application, Euracare argued that the cremation of the deceased’s body meant there would be no corpse available for a post-mortem examination, raising concerns about the ability of the coroner to conduct a meaningful inquiry.

The hospital also challenged the coroner’s decision to receive statements and evidence from medical personnel and other parties connected to the facilities where Nkanu received treatment before his death.

However, Justice Opesanwo held that the coroner’s decision to conduct the inquest was not a matter of discretion but a statutory obligation once the conditions prescribed by law had been met.

Citing Section 15 of the Coroners System Law of Lagos State 2007, the judge said the hospital had failed to establish that the legal conditions empowering the coroner to conduct the inquiry were absent.

She explained that the law did not require the deceased’s body to remain within the coroner’s district on the date of the inquest.

According to the judge, the hospital’s argument focused on the location and availability of the body rather than the circumstances that initially triggered the coroner’s jurisdiction.

Justice Opesanwo also rejected the contention that the cremation would make the inquiry speculative or undermine its eventual findings.

“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 further 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 said.

Explaining the purpose of the proceedings, Justice Opesanwo said a coroner’s inquest was a fact-finding exercise designed 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,” the judge said.

She stressed that the proceedings were inquisitorial rather than adversarial and were not intended to apportion blame or punish any party, but to establish the facts surrounding the death.

On the hospital’s objection to the order in which statements and other evidence would be received, the judge held that the coroner had the discretion to determine the sequence of evidence presented during the inquiry.

She ruled that the exercise of that discretion did not constitute a breach of the right to fair hearing merely because a party disagreed with the procedure adopted.

The judge also noted that the rules of evidence and procedure governing ordinary civil proceedings did not apply in precisely the same manner to a coroner’s inquest.

She subsequently upheld the preliminary objections raised by the respondents and struck out the hospital’s substantive application, rejecting its attempt to halt the proceedings.