… Company yet to file substantive defence as ex-CEO’s terminal benefits remain at centre of dispute
By Rashidat Olushola Okunlade
The legal battle between Pan African Towers Limited (PAT) and its former Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Azeez Amida, has moved to the Court of Appeal, but significant questions remain unanswered at the substantive level of the dispute.
PAT has filed a Notice of Appeal challenging the July 21, 2026 ruling of the National Industrial Court in Suit No. NICN/LA/143/2025, in which the court dismissed the company’s preliminary objection on jurisdiction and awarded ₦500,000 in costs against it.
The company is asking the Court of Appeal to set aside the ruling and, among other reliefs, strike out Amida’s suit for lack of jurisdiction or remit the preliminary objection to the National Industrial Court for reconsideration by another judge.
Unanswered Questions at the Heart of the Dispute
While the jurisdictional battle continues, PAT has yet to file a substantive defence addressing the core claims in Amida’s suit, according to reports on the proceedings.
The issue had previously attracted the attention of the National Industrial Court, where the absence of a substantive defence alongside the preliminary objection was raised during proceedings. The court was reported to have questioned the approach and its effect on the progress of the case.
At the heart of Amida’s case are claims relating to outstanding contractual entitlements under a Mutual Separation Agreement following his departure from Pan African Towers in November 2024.
The Core Claims and PAT’s Position
The court record shows that:
Amida’s solicitors demanded payment of a ₦150 million terminal benefit, which was agreed in a mutual separation agreement signed by both parties.
PAT’s response, as recorded in the July ruling, stated that the company was not liable to pay the terminal benefits.
The court subsequently rejected PAT’s preliminary objection and held that the claimant was entitled to commence the action after the company’s rejection of the proposed amicable settlement.
The precise substantive basis for PAT’s position on the claimed severance and terminal benefits, however, is yet to be fully tested in the substantive proceedings.
Key Questions Hanging Over the Dispute
Why has the former CEO’s claimed exit entitlement remained unpaid?
What is the company’s substantive defence to the claim?
Why has PAT not yet filed a substantive defence?
Rather than resolving that question at trial, the litigation has so far involved a battle over procedure and jurisdiction.
PAT’s Grounds of Appeal
Pan African Towers argues that the lower court:
Breached its constitutional right to fair hearing under Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution by considering the execution of the Mutual Separation Agreement and concluding that the document relied upon by the company had not been executed by the defendant, without giving the company an opportunity to address the point.
Went beyond the appropriate scope of an interlocutory proceeding by making a determination concerning the enforceability of the Mutual Separation Agreement.
Effectively determined a substantive issue at an interlocutory stage, potentially prejudicing the wider dispute between the parties.
What PAT Wants
The company is asking the Court of Appeal to:
Allow its appeal and set aside the July 21 ruling
Rehear its preliminary objection and grant the relief originally sought
Strike out Suit No. NICN/LA/143/2025 for lack of jurisdiction
Alternatively, remit the matter to the National Industrial Court for the preliminary objection to be heard by a different judge.
The July Ruling and What It Means
The July ruling found that Clause 13 of the Mutual Separation Agreement did not justify the strict application of the arbitration condition being relied upon by PAT. The court noted that the agreement provided that either party “may” refer the dispute to arbitration after the earlier dispute-resolution steps, and concluded that the preliminary objection lacked merit.
The ruling cleared the way for Amida’s substantive claims against PAT to proceed. Vanguard reported that the National Industrial Court fixed January 12, 2027 for hearing of the substantive suit after dismissing the company’s preliminary objection.
Current Status and Outlook
The appeal is pending, and the issues raised remain subject to judicial determination.
Neither the filing of the appeal nor the allegations contained in the proceedings constitutes a final determination of the parties’ respective claims.
The Court of Appeal will now determine whether the National Industrial Court was right to dismiss the preliminary objection and whether the proceedings should continue before that court.
For Amida, the substantive issue remains his claim for contractual entitlements. For PAT, the immediate issue is whether its jurisdictional challenge can stop or alter the course of that claim. Until the substantive case is heard, the question of the actual liability for Amida’s claimed severance and the full reasons for non-payment remain matters for judicial determination.
Case Summary
Detail Information
Plaintiff Azeez Amida (former MD/CEO)
Defendant Pan African Towers Limited
Suit No. NICN/LA/143/2025
Claim ₦150 million terminal benefit under Mutual Separation Agreement
July 21, 2026 Ruling Court dismissed PAT’s preliminary objection; awarded ₦500,000 costs against PAT
Next Substantive Hearing January 12, 2027 (subject to appeal)
Current Status PAT has appealed to the Court of Appeal; substantive defence not yet filed
© ROTAMediaNews Digital Newspaper | Report compiled by Rashidat Olushola Okunlade
Publisher/Editor in-Chief BusinessEcho Magazine Print monthly and ROTAMediaNews Digital Newspaper Publication
rotamedianews@gmail.com businessechomag@gmail.com
