By 
Court Awards Costs Against Pan African Towers, Orders Ex-CEO’s Contract Claims to Proceed
The National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN), sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos, has dismissed a preliminary objection filed by Pan African Towers Limited (PAT), clearing the way for the substantive hearing of an employment dispute brought by the company’s former Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Azeez Amida.
RELATED: Pan African Towers accused of delay tactics in former CEO Azeez Amida’s severance dispute
In a ruling delivered on July 21, 2026, in Suit No. NICN/LA/143/2025: Mr. Azeez Amida v. Pan African Towers Limited, Justice Essien rejected the company’s attempt to terminate the proceedings on jurisdictional grounds and awarded ₦500,000 in costs against Pan African Towers.
The decision represents the first substantive judicial determination in a dispute that could have wider implications for corporate governance, executive employment contracts, and dispute resolution practices in Nigeria’s investment-backed companies.
Court Rejects Company’s Jurisdiction Challenge
Pan African Towers had asked the court to decline jurisdiction, arguing that the parties’ Mutual Separation Agreement required negotiation, mediation and arbitration before either party could approach the court.
However, the court found that the former CEO had already taken reasonable steps to activate the contractual dispute resolution mechanism before commencing legal proceedings.
Evidence before the court showed that Mr. Amida, through his legal representatives, had initiated discussions, issued formal demand letters and sought an amicable resolution in line with the agreement.
Justice Essien held that the company failed to meaningfully engage those efforts before later attempting to rely on the same contractual provisions to challenge the court’s jurisdiction.
Court Finds Company Waived Right to Arbitration
A major factor in the court’s decision was its finding that Pan African Towers could no longer insist on arbitration after failing to participate in the preliminary dispute resolution process contemplated by the agreement.
According to evidence presented by Mr. Amida’s legal team, correspondence from Adefolarin Ogunsanya, Chairman of the Pan African Towers Board and Partner at Development Partners International, rejected proposals for an amicable settlement before litigation.
The claimant also presented evidence of multiple emails sent to Verod Capital’s in-house legal counsel, Dipo Okuribido, from January 2025 onwards, which allegedly received no response.
Based on these facts, the court held that the company’s conduct was inconsistent with its later reliance on the arbitration clause.
Justice Essien ruled that a party cannot frustrate agreed dispute resolution procedures and subsequently invoke those same procedures to prevent a matter from being heard by the court.
Employment Claims Now Proceed to Full Hearing
With the preliminary objection dismissed, the National Industrial Court will now proceed to hear the substantive issues surrounding Mr. Amida’s alleged outstanding contractual entitlements arising from the parties’ Mutual Separation Agreement.
Legal observers note that Pan African Towers had focused primarily on contesting the court’s jurisdiction rather than filing a substantive defence to the employment claims.
The ruling now requires the parties to address the merits of the dispute before the court.
The case has been adjourned until January 12, 2027, for substantive hearing.
₦500,000 Costs Awarded Against Pan African Towers
In addition to dismissing the preliminary objection, Justice Essien awarded ₦500,000 against Pan African Towers in favour of the claimant for filing what the court considered an unsuccessful application.
The costs relate solely to the jurisdictional challenge and do not determine the substantive employment claims, which remain to be decided.
How the Dispute Evolved
The dispute stems from Mr. Amida’s exit from Pan African Towers following the execution of a Mutual Separation Agreement.
According to the claimant, certain contractual obligations remained outstanding after his departure.
Before filing suit, his legal representatives reportedly engaged the company through formal correspondence and demand notices in an attempt to resolve the issues through the contractual dispute resolution process.
When those efforts failed, Mr. Amida commenced proceedings before the National Industrial Court seeking payment of his alleged outstanding contractual entitlements.
Rather than immediately responding to the merits of the claims, Pan African Towers first challenged the court’s jurisdiction, arguing that arbitration provisions had not been exhausted.
The court has now rejected that position, allowing the employment dispute to proceed.
Separate Ownership Litigation Continues
The employment proceedings are distinct from separate commercial litigation currently before the Federal High Court involving Mr. Amida, Development Partners International, Verod Capital Management and other parties concerning issues relating to the ownership and corporate structure of Pan African Towers.
Both matters are expected to proceed independently, with each court determining the issues before it based on separate evidence and applicable law.
Legal Team Welcomes Ruling
Reacting to the decision, representatives of Mr. Amida’s legal team described the ruling as an affirmation of a fundamental principle governing contractual dispute resolution.
According to the lawyers:
“The Court has affirmed an important principle of contractual dispute resolution. A party cannot frustrate the agreed process and later seek to rely on that same process to prevent a claim from being heard. We now look forward to presenting the substantive case before the Court.”
The legal team also acknowledged that Pan African Towers retains the right to pursue any appellate remedies available under Nigerian law while expressing readiness for the substantive hearing in January 2027.
Broader Implications for Corporate Nigeria
Beyond the immediate dispute, the ruling reinforces important principles for employers, investors, boards of directors and senior executives.
For businesses, it underscores the importance of honouring contractual dispute resolution procedures and engaging constructively in negotiations before seeking judicial intervention.
For corporate boards and private equity-backed companies, the judgment highlights the legal risks of ignoring contractual engagement mechanisms while later attempting to rely on arbitration clauses to halt litigation.
The decision also serves as a reminder to executives and employees that Nigerian courts may examine not only what contracts provide but also how parties conduct themselves before litigation begins.
As investment activity and executive mobility continue to grow across Nigeria’s telecommunications and infrastructure sectors, the case may become an important reference point on the enforceability of dispute resolution clauses in employment and executive separation agreements.
