PAT VS EX-CEO SHOWDOWN: FIRM RUSHES TO APPEAL COURT OVER AMIDA SEVERANCE SAGA, BUT DODGES MAIN CLAIMS
GREATRIBUNETVNEWS–THE legal war between Pan African Towers Limited (PAT) and its former MD/CEO, Azeez Amida, has shifted to the Court of Appeal — yet the company is still silent on the real issue: the ex-boss’s terminal benefits.
PAT has filed a Notice of Appeal challenging the July 21, 2026 ruling of the National Industrial Court in Suit No. NICN/LA/143/2025, where the court threw out its objection to jurisdiction and slammed it with a ₦500,000 cost.
The company is now asking the appellate court to quash the ruling and strike out Amida’s suit or send the objection back for a re-hearing before another judge.
But while PAT fights over jurisdiction, it has yet to file a defence to Amida’s substantive claims on his severance — leaving the heart of the dispute untouched.
The issue has previously attracted the attention of the National Industrial Court, where the absence of a substantive defence alongside the preliminary objection was raised during proceedings. Reports from the proceedings said the court questioned the approach and its effect on the progress of the case.
That leaves the central dispute still awaiting substantive determination.
At the heart of Amida’s case are claims relating to outstanding contractual entitlements under a Mutual Separation Agreement following his departure from Pan African Towers in November 2024.
The court record shows that Amida’s solicitors demanded payment of a ₦150 million terminal benefit, which was agreed in a mutual separation agreement signed by both parties, while PAT’s response, as recorded in the July ruling, stated that the company was not liable to pay the terminal benefits. The court subsequently rejected PAT’s preliminary objection and held that the claimant was entitled to commence the action after the company’s rejection of the proposed amicable settlement.
The precise substantive basis for PAT’s position on the claimed severance and terminal benefits, however, is yet to be fully tested in the substantive proceedings.
This is now one of the key questions hanging over the dispute: why has the former CEO’s claimed exit entitlement remained unpaid, and what is the company’s substantive defence to the claim?
Rather than resolving that question at trial, the litigation has so far involved a battle over procedure and jurisdiction.
PAT’s latest move to the Court of Appeal means that the procedural contest will continue even as the underlying contractual dispute remains unresolved.
The July ruling itself found that Clause 13 of the Mutual Separation Agreement did not justify the strict application of the arbitration condition being relied upon by PAT. The court noted that the agreement provided that either party “may” refer the dispute to arbitration after the earlier dispute-resolution steps, and concluded that the preliminary objection lacked merit.
The Court of Appeal will now determine whether the National Industrial Court was right to dismiss the preliminary objection and whether the proceedings should continue before that court.
For Amida, the substantive issue remains his claim for contractual entitlements.
For PAT, the immediate issue is whether its jurisdictional challenge can stop or alter the course of that claim.
Until the substantive case is heard, however, the question of the actual liability for Amida’s claimed severance and the full reasons for non-payment remain matters for judicial determination.
Neither the filing of the appeal nor the allegations contained in the proceedings constitutes a final determination of the parties’ respective claims.
About the Author
