The Attorney-General of Lagos State, Lawal Pedro, alongside the Chief Coroner of Lagos State and the presiding Coroner for the Lagos Coroner’s District Court, has filed a preliminary objection challenging a suit by Eurapharma Care Services Nigeria Limited seeking to halt an ongoing coroner’s inquest into the death of Master Nkanu Adichie-Esege, son of acclaimed author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie and Dr. Ivara Esege.
The objection, dated June 5, 2026, was filed in response to a judicial review application instituted by Eurapharma Care Services, operators of a hospital in Victoria Island where the child reportedly died on January 7, 2026.
The hospital had earlier obtained an interim order from the Lagos State High Court sitting in Osborne, Ikoyi, presided over by Justice A.O. Opesanwo, temporarily staying proceedings in the coroner’s inquest pending the determination of its substantive application.
In its suit, Eurapharma Care Services is seeking orders of certiorari and prohibition to quash decisions of the Coroner’s Court and restrain further proceedings in the inquest.
However, the respondents—the Coroner, the Chief Coroner, and the Attorney-General of Lagos State—argued that the judicial review proceedings are incompetent, premature, and constitute an abuse of court process.
In a joint written address, they maintained that the applicant failed to establish any legal basis for invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court through judicial review. According to the respondents, certiorari can only be granted where an inferior tribunal or public authority acts without jurisdiction or exceeds the powers conferred upon it by law.
Relying on the Coroners System Law of Lagos State, the respondents contended that the Coroner possesses exclusive statutory authority to investigate suspicious deaths occurring within the relevant district.
They argued that the decision to proceed with an inquest into the death of Master Nkanu Adichie-Esege falls squarely within those statutory powers.
The respondents further submitted that Section 21 of the Coroners System Law empowers a Coroner to conduct an inquest even where the body of the deceased has been destroyed or cannot be recovered.
Consequently, they rejected the hospital’s argument that the alleged cremation of the child’s remains deprived the Coroner of jurisdiction.
They also argued that no formal evidence had yet been presented before the Coroner regarding the alleged cremation or the absence of an autopsy report. As such, they described the judicial review proceedings as speculative and premature.
“The applicant seeks to invite this Honourable Court into a realm of speculation by asking the Court to intervene in respect of issues upon which the Coroner Court was yet to consider or deliver any ruling,” the respondents stated.
The Attorney-General and other respondents also dismissed the hospital’s complaint regarding the Coroner’s directive requiring it to call witnesses first during the inquest.
They argued that no breach of the constitutional right to fair hearing had occurred, noting that the hospital had not alleged that it was denied the opportunity to present evidence or cross-examine witnesses.
Citing Supreme Court decisions, including Gyang v Commissioner of Police, Lagos State and Yusuf v State, the respondents maintained that fair hearing simply requires that parties be given a reasonable opportunity to present their cases.
They urged the court to dismiss the application in its entirety, describing it as an attempt to circumvent the statutory procedures governing investigations into suspicious deaths.
According to the respondents, the suit constitutes an abuse of court process because it seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court before the Coroner’s Court has concluded its proceedings or made any substantive findings.
“The instant suit was filed to circumvent the laid-down procedure by law regarding death that happened in suspicious circumstances,” they submitted.
Justice Opesanwo subsequently adjourned the matter until September 8, 2026, for the hearing of all preliminary objections.
