Fresh concerns have emerged in the ongoing legal dispute between former Pan African Towers CEO, Azeez Amida, and Pan African Towers Limited, following claims that the company is relying on procedural tactics to delay substantive determination of the matter rather than directly addressing the underlying dispute.
Pan African Towers
According to court filings, Amida’s severance obligations under a Mutual Separation Agreement executed following his exit from the company in November 2024 remain unpaid nearly eighteen months later.
Despite the fact that the matter commenced before the National Industrial Court since June 2025, Pan African Towers has reportedly not filed a substantive defence to indicate its refusal to fulfil the obligations in dispute. Instead, the company has pursued a preliminary objection on ground that Hamida did not comply with mandatory provision for mediation and alternatively pursue his remedy through arbitration rather than litigation.
The matter came before Honourable Justice Essien of the National Industrial Court, Lagos Division, on Tuesday, where counsel for Pan African Towers, Mr. Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo with Chukwudi Nwudike and Amira Omodu urged the Court to decline jurisdiction pursuant to Clause 13A and or refere the matter to arbitration vide 13B of the Mutual Separation Agreement.
Counsel representing Amida from Pinheiro LP, Bolu Agbaje Akadri, leading Emeka Ekweozor and Ukamaka Ali opposed the application, arguing that multiple attempts had previously been made to resolve the matter, including formal demands for performance under the agreement, before the suit was filed.
During proceedings, the Court reportedly queried the absence of a substantive defence alongside the preliminary objection, describing the approach as procedurally improper before electing to hear the application.
It is Amida’s position that attempt was made in line with the Mutual Separation Agreement to have the matter resolved amicably with no success whilst reliance on arbitration which is optional under the agreement at this stage appears inconsistent with prior conduct, noting that no meaningful steps had allegedly been taken to initiate arbitration proceedings before the matter was brought before the Court.
“The substance of the dispute remains unanswered,” Amida’s states. “The concern is whether procedural manoeuvres are being deployed to postpone accountability rather than resolve the issues in contention.”
The Court has now adjourned the matter to 6 July 2026 for ruling on the preliminary objection.
The dispute is attracting increasing attention within legal, business, and corporate governance circles due to its potential implications for executive separation agreements, contractual enforcement, and dispute resolution mechanisms within Nigeria’s corporate environment.
Observers note that the eventual outcome could influence how arbitration clauses, executive transition obligations, and post transaction disputes are approached in future corporate matters.
The matter remains before the Court.
