Fresh concerns have emerged in the legal dispute between former Pan African Towers CEO, Azeez Amida, and Pan African Towers, amid allegations that the company is relying on procedural tactics to delay a substantive hearing of the matter instead of addressing the core dispute.
Court filings seen by Nairametrics indicate that severance obligations allegedly owed to Amida under a Mutual Separation Agreement executed after his exit from the company in November 2024 remain unpaid nearly 18 months later.
The dispute, which has been before the National Industrial Court of Nigeria since June 2025, has yet to proceed to substantive hearing, as Pan African Towers is said to have focused on challenging the court’s jurisdiction rather than filing a defence on the merits of the claims.
Company pushes for mediation, arbitration
At proceedings before Honourable Justice Essien at the Lagos Division of the National Industrial Court on Tuesday, counsel to Pan African Towers, Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo, alongside Chukwudi Nwudike and Amira Omodu, urged the court to decline jurisdiction based on Clause 13A of the Mutual Separation Agreement.
The legal team also asked the court to refer the matter to arbitration under Clause 13B of the agreement, arguing that Amida failed to comply with mandatory mediation provisions before approaching the court.
However, counsel representing Amida from Pinheiro LP, led by Bolu Agbaje Akadri with Emeka Ekweozor and Ukamaka Ali, opposed the application, maintaining that several attempts had already been made to resolve the dispute amicably before litigation commenced.
According to Amida’s legal team, formal demands for compliance with the agreement were issued prior to the suit being filed.
Court queries absence of substantive defence
During proceedings, the court reportedly questioned why Pan African Towers had not filed a substantive defence alongside its preliminary objection, describing the approach as procedurally improper before proceeding to hear the application.
Amida’s position is that efforts were made in line with the Mutual Separation Agreement to settle the matter amicably without success.
His representatives further argued that the company’s reliance on arbitration at this stage appeared inconsistent with its prior conduct, noting that no meaningful attempt had allegedly been made to initiate arbitration proceedings before the case was brought before the court.
“The substance of the dispute remains unanswered,” Amida stated.
“The concern is whether procedural manoeuvres are being deployed to postpone accountability rather than resolve the issues in contention.”
Ruling adjourned to July 2026
The court subsequently adjourned the matter to July 6, 2026, for ruling on the preliminary objection.
The dispute is drawing increasing attention within legal, corporate governance, and business circles due to its potential implications for executive separation agreements, contractual enforcement, and dispute resolution mechanisms in Nigeria’s corporate sector.
Observers say the eventual outcome could shape how arbitration clauses, executive transition obligations, and post transaction disputes are interpreted and enforced in future corporate matters.
The case remains before the court.
Add Comment