A Lagos State High Court sitting in Ikeja on Monday dismissed an application by Euracare Multi-Specialist Hospital seeking to stop 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, ruling that the hospital’s suit was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature, jurisdiction and operation of a coroner’s court.
In her ruling, Justice Opesanwo made several key findings. She held that Section 15(2) of the Lagos State Coroner’s System Law 2007 makes an inquest compulsory in cases of death in custody occurring within a medical facility.
The judge rejected the hospital’s argument that the cremation of the child’s body and its subsequent unavailability deprived the coroner of jurisdiction. She explained that the location where the death occurred, rather than the physical presence of a corpse during proceedings, determines the court’s authority.
Justice Opesanwo also emphasised that a coroner’s court conducts a fact-finding inquiry to establish who died, how, when and where the death occurred, rather than a criminal or civil trial aimed at assigning blame or imposing penalties.
Nkanu Esege died 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, however, has maintained that the child arrived at its facility in a critical condition and received treatment in line with standard medical protocols.
Following the Lagos State Government’s decision to initiate a coroner’s inquest into the circumstances surrounding the toddler’s death, Euracare approached the High Court in a bid to halt the proceedings.
The hospital argued that conducting an inquest without the body being available for a post-mortem examination would produce speculative conclusions and waste state resources.
It also contended that requiring its medical personnel to present evidence first violated its constitutional right to a fair hearing under Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution.
In addressing the objections, Justice Opesanwo clarified that a coroner’s court does not operate under the strict rules of evidence or conventional trial procedures in which the 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 has full statutory discretion to determine the order in which witness statements and evidence are presented. It also held that judicial review cannot be used to truncate a process mandated by state law.
Following the High Court’s dismissal of the application, the coroner’s inquest into the toddler’s death is expected to proceed.