ESABUNOR & ANOR v. FAWEYA & ORS (2019) LPELR-46961(SC)

ESABUNOR & ANOR v. FAWEYA & ORS (2019) LPELR-46961(SC) Delivered by the Supreme Court of Nigeria on the 8th of March, 2019 

Coram: Olamide Rhodes-Vivour, JSC (Lead Judgement), Okoro JSC, Nweze JSC, Augie JSC, and others (unanimous decision). 

Authored by Tobechukwu Uzo-Nwokorie 

Introduction 

Esabunor & Anor v. Faweya & Ors is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in medical law, particularly on the conflict between parental religious rights and the right to life of a child. The case addresses whether a parent, on religious grounds, has the right to refuse life-saving treatment for his/her child, and whether the Magistrate Court has jurisdiction to authorize such treatment without parental consent. 

Facts 

The case arose when the 1st appellant, a one-month-old infant, fell critically ill and was taken by his mother (the 2nd appellant, a Jehovah’s Witness) to Chevron Clinic in Lagos. Dr. Faweya, the 1st respondent, diagnosed severe infection and anemia. Upon seeing that the child was in critical condition, the 1st respondent concluded that an urgent blood transfusion was necessary to save the child’s life. The mother, citing her religious beliefs, refused consent for the transfusion. 

Faced with imminent danger to the infant’s life, the Commissioner of Police applied ex parte to the Chief Magistrate Court under Sections 27(1) & 30, Children and Young Persons Law, Cap 25, Lagos State, for authorization to treat the 1st appellant. The Magistrate granted an order permitting the doctors to “do all and anything necessary” to protect the child’s life. A transfusion was administered, the child recovered, and was discharged. 

The mother challenged the order at the Magistrate Court. Upon dismissal, she appealed to the High Court to quash the Magistrate Court’s judgement, and later, to the Court of Appeal. Both courts dismissed her claims. Dissatisfied, she appealed to the Supreme Court, raising issues of jurisdiction, fair hearing, religious freedom, and damages. 

Issues 

1. Whether the Court of Appeal misdirected itself by abandoning the issue of jurisdiction of the Chief Magistrate Court. 
2. Whether the High Court was right in refusing to quash the Magistrate’s Order for lack of jurisdiction. 
3. Whether the proceedings before the Chief Magistrate breached appellants’ right to fair hearing. 
4. Whether refusal of consent to blood transfusion amounted to an attempt to commit a crime or allow the child to die. 
5. Whether the Magistrate’s Order overrode the 2nd appellant’s right to choose medical treatment for her child. 
6. Whether the matter became academic since transfused blood could not be extracted. 7. Whether appellants were entitled to damages. 

Arguments of the Parties 

The appellants argued that the 2nd appellant’s consent was necessary before administering treatment and the Magistrate Court lacked jurisdiction to order a blood transfusion, thus, their right to fair hearing and the 2nd appellant’s parental religious rights were breached.

The respondents averred that the 1st appellant’s right to life under Section 33 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) overrides parental religious objections and courts have inherent jurisdiction to prevent commission of crime (allowing a child to die could amount to criminal neglect), and as such, the Magistrate Court properly exercised its powers to protect the child’s welfare. 

Judgement 

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal for lack of merit. It affirmed the concurrent decisions of the lower courts, and held that the Magistrate’s order authorizing blood transfusion was valid and lawful. As such, no damages were awarded to the appellants by the Supreme Court. 

Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi 

• The Duty of the Law to Protect a Child’s Welfare: The Supreme Court explained that while adults have the right to refuse medical treatment (M.D.P.D.T. v. Okonkwo), a child lacks such capacity. Thus, it is the duty of the court to intervene and in reaching a decision in such cases as the present one, to prioritize the best interest of the child as it overrides his parent’s religious beliefs. 
• Jurisdiction of Magistrate Court: The Supreme Court explained that inherent jurisdiction refers to the powers exercisable by a court, though not conferred by the Constitution or any Legislation, but necessary for proper administration of justice (Ajayi v. Omoregbe). Magistrates have inherent jurisdiction to prevent commission of a crime (i.e., allowing death of a child through denial of medical treatment). 
• Certiorari: The Supreme Court explained that the order of certiorari (an order sought to quash the judgement of a lower court) is a discretionary one and can only quash judicial acts made without jurisdiction. The Magistrate acted within jurisdiction; hence the certiorari was unavailable as rightly held by the High Court. 
• Fair Hearing: The Court explained although fair hearing constitutes demands the right of a party to be heard before his case is decided, there was no breach to the appellant’sright to fair hearing occurred due to the urgency of the matter which justified ex parte proceedings to protect the child’s life. It explained that the principle of fair hearing does not apply in such urgent situations involving a child’s life. 
• Damages: The Supreme Court reiterated that a trial court may only award damages where there is credible evidence supporting the claim. Since the respondents acted lawfully to save the child’s life, the appellant’s claim for damages failed. 

Conclusion 

This case underscores that the welfare and survival of a child outweigh parental religious rights. It clarifies that while adults may refuse medical treatment on religious grounds, courts will intervene to protect children who lack capacity to make such decisions. It also affirms the inherent jurisdiction of courts to safeguard life and highlights the constitutional prioritization of the right to life (Section 33 CFRN 1999) over parental rights under Section 38 (freedom of religion). 

Significance 

The case is significant because it established that a child’s right to life and welfare overrides parental religious objections. The Supreme Court held that while adults may refuse medical treatment for themselves, the courts have a duty to intervene to protect the best interests of children. It also clarified the inherent jurisdiction of magistrates to act in urgent situations, limited the scope of certiorari, and emphasized that the survival of the child takes precedence over parental freedom of religion. 

Cases Referred to 

Ajayi v Omorogbe (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt.301) p.512 

M.D.P.D.T. v Okonkwo (2001) 7NWLR (Pt.711) p.206.

Statutes Referred to 

Child’s Right Act, LFN 2003 

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 

Police Act, 2004 

Reference(S):

1. Esther Oriah, ‘Tega Esabunor V. Dr. Tunde Faweya & Ors’ (Legalpedia Online, 2019)  <https://legalpediaonline.com/tega-esabunor-anor-v-dr-tunde-faweya-ors/amp/> accessed 23 August 2025. 
2. LawPavilion Blog, ‘Position of the Law on the Application of a Particular Form of Medical Treatment on a Child’ (LawPavilion Blog, 29 March 2019) <https://lawpavilion.com/blog/position-of-the-law-on-the-application-of-a-particular-for m-of-medical-treatment-on-a-child/amp/> accessed 23 August 2025. 
3. Nigerian Law Forum, ‘Tega Esabunor V. Dr. Tunde Faweya & Ors (2020)’ (Nigerian Law Forum) <https://nigerianlawforum.com/case-law/tega-esabunor-v-dr-tunde-faweya-ors-2020/> accessed 23 August 2025.