•••• Company yet to file substantive defence as ex-CEO’s terminal benefits remain at centre of dispute
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 court 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.
But 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 has previously attracted the attention of the National Industrial Court, where the absence of a substantive defence alongside the preliminary objection was raised during proceedings. Reports from the proceedings said the court questioned the approach and its effect on the progress of the case.
That leaves the central dispute still awaiting substantive determination.
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 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, while 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.
This is now one of the key questions hanging over the dispute: why has the former CEO’s claimed exit entitlement remained unpaid, and what is the company’s substantive defence to the claim?
Rather than resolving that question at trial, the litigation has so far involved a battle over procedure and jurisdiction.
PAT’s latest move to the Court of Appeal means that the procedural contest will continue even as the underlying contractual dispute remains unresolved.
The July ruling itself 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 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, however, the question of the actual liability for Amida’s claimed severance and the full reasons for non-payment remain matters for judicial determination.
Neither the filing of the appeal nor the allegations contained in the proceedings constitutes a final determination of the parties’ respective claims.