₦150m Exit Pay: Pan African Towers Takes Ex-CEO Amida’s Case to Appeal Court

Company yet to file substantive defence as terminal benefits dispute deepens

The legal dispute between Pan African Towers Limited (PAT) and its former Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Azeez Amida, has escalated to the Court of Appeal, with the company challenging a ruling of the National Industrial Court over the jurisdiction to hear the former executive’s claims.

PAT filed a Notice of Appeal against the July 21, 2026 ruling in Suit No. NICN/LA/143/2025, in which the National Industrial Court dismissed the company’s preliminary objection challenging its jurisdiction and awarded ₦500,000 costs against PAT.

The company is asking the appellate court to overturn the decision and either strike out Amida’s suit for want of jurisdiction or return the preliminary objection to the National Industrial Court for fresh consideration by another judge.

However, the jurisdictional battle has taken place against the backdrop of an unresolved substantive claim, as PAT is yet to file a substantive defence to Amida’s claims, according to reports from the proceedings.

The former CEO’s suit centres on alleged unpaid contractual entitlements arising from a Mutual Separation Agreement entered into following his exit from the company in November 2024.

Court documents show that Amida’s lawyers demanded payment of ₦150 million as terminal benefits allegedly agreed under the separation agreement.

PAT, however, maintained in its response, as captured in the July ruling, that it was not liable for the claimed terminal benefits.

The National Industrial Court rejected the company’s preliminary objection, holding that Amida could institute the action after PAT rejected the proposed amicable settlement.

The court also considered Clause 13 of the Mutual Separation Agreement, which PAT relied upon in arguing that the dispute ought to be subjected to arbitration.

The court found that the clause did not make arbitration mandatory, noting that the agreement stated that either party “may” refer the dispute to arbitration after the prescribed dispute-resolution steps.

The court consequently dismissed the preliminary objection.

PAT has now taken the jurisdictional issue before the Court of Appeal, seeking to halt or alter the proceedings at the lower court.

The development leaves the substantive dispute over the alleged ₦150 million entitlement unresolved.

A key issue yet to be fully tested at trial is PAT’s substantive position on why the former CEO’s claimed terminal benefit should not be paid.

The absence of a substantive defence alongside the preliminary objection had also been raised during proceedings before the National Industrial Court, with the court reportedly questioning its effect on the progress of the case.

With the appeal now pending, the legal battle has effectively shifted focus from the merits of the former CEO’s claim to the question of whether the National Industrial Court should continue hearing the matter.

The Court of Appeal will determine whether the lower court was right to assume jurisdiction and dismiss PAT’s preliminary objection.

Until the substantive case is heard and determined, the question of PAT’s actual liability for the claimed severance and terminal benefits remains unresolved.

Neither the appeal nor the allegations contained in the proceedings constitutes a final determination of the rights and liabilities of either party.