National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN), sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos, has dismissed a Notice of Preliminary Objection filed by Pan African Towers Ltd. (PAT) in an employment dispute instituted by its former Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Azeez Amida.
The court also awarded ₦500,000 in costs against the company after holding that the application lacked merit.
Justice Essien, who delivered the ruling on July 21 in Suit No. NICN/LA/143/2025: Mr. Azeez Amida v. Pan African Towers Limited, held that the substantive case concerning Amida’s alleged outstanding contractual entitlements under a Mutual Separation Agreement should proceed to hearing.
The ruling effectively rejected the company’s attempt to terminate the proceedings on jurisdictional grounds.
Jurisdictional Challenge Rejected
Pan African Towers had argued that the National Industrial Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter because the Mutual Separation Agreement executed between the parties required disputes to first pass through negotiation, mediation and arbitration before litigation could be initiated.
The company maintained that Mr. Amida failed to exhaust those contractual dispute resolution mechanisms before approaching the court.
However, Justice Essien rejected the argument after examining evidence presented by the claimant showing that several attempts had been made to activate the agreed dispute resolution process before legal proceedings commenced.
According to the court, documentary evidence showed that Mr. Amida, through his solicitors, issued correspondence and formal demand letters aimed at resolving the dispute amicably in line with the terms of the agreement.
The court found that rather than engaging with those efforts, Pan African Towers failed to meaningfully participate in the process and later sought to rely on the same contractual provisions to challenge the court’s jurisdiction.
Evidence Considered by the Court
According to evidence presented by Mr. Amida’s legal team, the court considered correspondence involving senior officials of Pan African Towers and its investors.
Among the documents relied upon was a letter allegedly written by the Chairman of the Board of Pan African Towers and Partner at Development Partners International (DPI), Mr. Adefolarin Ogunsanya, rejecting the demand made by Mr. Amida’s legal representatives for an amicable resolution before litigation.
The claimant’s legal team also tendered multiple email communications allegedly sent from January 2025 to Verod Capital Management’s in-house legal counsel, Mr. Dipo Okuribido.
According to the claimant, those emails did not receive any response before the commencement of the suit.
Based on the evidence before it, the court held that the conduct of Pan African Towers was inconsistent with reliance on the contractual dispute resolution provisions.
Justice Essien ruled that the company had effectively waived its right to insist on arbitration after frustrating the preliminary dispute resolution process contemplated by the parties’ agreement.
The court consequently held that Pan African Towers could not rely on the arbitration clause to prevent the court from hearing the substantive claims.
Court Awards Costs
Having dismissed the Preliminary Objection, the National Industrial Court awarded costs of ₦500,000 against Pan African Towers.
The court described the objection as lacking merit.
Substantive Defence Yet to Be Filed
The ruling represents the first judicial determination in the employment dispute.
The claimant’s legal team noted that since the suit commenced, the principal response filed by Pan African Towers had been the Preliminary Objection challenging the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court.
According to the claimant, the company has yet to file a substantive defence addressing the merits of the claims relating to the alleged outstanding contractual entitlements.
With the dismissal of the jurisdictional challenge, the matter will now proceed to hearing on its merits.
The court adjourned the substantive suit until Jan. 12, 2027.
Background to the Dispute
The dispute arose following Mr. Amida’s departure from Pan African Towers after both parties executed a Mutual Separation Agreement.
According to the claimant, while the agreement governed the terms of his exit from the company, certain contractual entitlements remained unpaid.
His legal representatives said they initially sought to resolve the dispute through the mechanisms provided under the agreement by engaging the company through correspondence and formal demand letters.
When those efforts failed to produce a resolution, they commenced proceedings before the National Industrial Court seeking payment of the outstanding contractual entitlements.
Rather than filing a substantive defence to the claims, Pan African Towers challenged the jurisdiction of the court, arguing that arbitration and other dispute resolution mechanisms had not been exhausted.
The National Industrial Court has now rejected that position.
Related Commercial Litigation
The employment proceedings are separate from ongoing commercial cases before the Federal High Court involving Mr. Amida, Development Partners International (DPI), Verod Capital Management and other parties.
Those proceedings relate to issues concerning the ownership of Pan African Towers and remain pending before the courts.
The National Industrial Court noted that those matters would be determined independently based on their respective facts, evidence and applicable legal principles.
Legal Team Reacts
Reacting to the ruling, representatives of Mr. Amida’s legal team welcomed the decision.
“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 said.
The lawyers acknowledged that Pan African Towers retained the right under Nigerian law to pursue any available appellate remedies but stated that they were fully prepared for the substantive hearing scheduled for January 2027.
