The Attorney-General of Lagos State, Lawal Pedro, SAN, alongside the state’s Chief Coroner and the presiding Coroner for the Lagos Coroner’s District Court, have filed a preliminary objection challenging the competence of a suit instituted by Eurapharma Care Services Nigeria Limited seeking to stop an ongoing coroner’s inquest into the death of Master Nkanu Adichie-Esege, son of renowned author Chimamanda Adichie and Dr Ivara Esege.
The objection dated June 5, 2026, was filed in response to a judicial review application brought by Eurapharma Care Services, operators of a hospital in Victoria Island where the child reportedly died on January 7, 2026.
The hospital had secured an interim order from the Lagos State High Court sitting in Osborne, Ikoyi, presided over by Justice A.O. Opesanwo, staying proceedings in the coroner’s inquest pending the determination of its substantive application.
In the suit, the hospital is seeking orders of certiorari and prohibition to quash the Coroner’s Court’s decisions and to restrain further proceedings in the inquest.
However, in a Notice of Preliminary Objection filed before the court, the first to third respondents—the Coroner, Chief Coroner and Attorney-General of Lagos State—argued that the judicial review proceedings are incompetent, premature and amount to an abuse of court process.
In their joint written address, the respondents contended that the applicant failed to establish any basis for invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court through judicial review.
They maintained that under Nigerian law, certiorari is available only where an inferior tribunal or public authority acts without jurisdiction or exceeds the jurisdiction conferred on it by law.
Relying on the Coroners System Law of Lagos State, the respondents argued that the Coroner possesses exclusive statutory authority to conduct inquests into suspicious deaths occurring within the relevant district.
According to them, the decision to proceed with the inquest into the death of Master Nkanu Adichie-Esege falls squarely within the powers granted to the Coroner by law.
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 is destroyed or cannot be recovered. They therefore rejected the hospital’s contention that the alleged cremation of the deceased’s remains deprived the Coroner of jurisdiction.
The Attorney-General and other respondents also argued that no evidence had yet been formally led before the Coroner regarding the alleged cremation of the body or the absence of an autopsy report.
According to them, those issues had not been canvassed before the Coroner’s Court for a determination, making the judicial review proceedings speculative. They contended that the applicant was effectively inviting the High Court to intervene in matters on which the Coroner had not yet made any ruling.
“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 argued.
The respondents further challenged the hospital’s complaint over the Coroner’s directive requiring it to call witnesses first during the inquest.
They maintained that no breach of the constitutional right to fair hearing had occurred, noting that the applicant had not alleged that it was denied the opportunity to present evidence or cross-examine witnesses.
Citing several Supreme Court authorities, including Gyang v Commissioner of Police, Lagos State and Yusuf v State, the respondents argued that fair hearing simply requires that parties be given an adequate opportunity to present their cases.
They insisted that the applicant’s complaint was not rooted in the principles of natural justice and could not justify intervention by the High Court.
The respondents consequently urged Justice Opesanwo to dismiss the application in its entirety, describing it as an attempt to circumvent statutory procedures governing investigations into suspicious deaths.
According to them, 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,” the respondents submitted.
