By Iroyin Yoruba Television
XEJet Limited has taken legal action against Skyway Aviation Handling Company Plc, known as SAHCO, and the Aviation Ground Handlers Association of Nigeria, AGHAN, over a dispute involving ground-handling services, payment of aviation-related invoices and the alleged disclosure of information concerning the airline's account.
The privately owned Nigerian airline filed two separate suits at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory in Abuja, asking the court to determine whether information relating to its dealings with SAHCO was protected by contractual confidentiality obligations and whether the withdrawal of ground-handling services was lawful under the agreement between the two companies.
The development places a dispute between an airline and an airport service provider before the courts at a time when ground-handling operations remain an important part of Nigeria's aviation system.
The legal action does not amount to a judicial finding against SAHCO or AGHAN. The allegations made by XEJet will have to be considered by the court, while the defendants will have the opportunity to present their own positions.
TWO SEPARATE LEGAL ACTIONS
The first suit, marked FCT/HC/CV/4506/2026, was filed against SAHCO.
In that case, XEJet is asking the court to interpret provisions of its Standard Ground Handling Agreement with SAHCO and determine whether information concerning the airline's account was required to remain confidential.
The information in question includes invoices, statements of account, amounts billed, amounts paid, outstanding balances, payment history, communications and proposals exchanged between the two companies.
XEJet maintains that such information was covered by confidentiality provisions in the agreement and that SAHCO was not entitled to disclose the information to AGHAN, its officers or members without the airline's consent.
The airline is also challenging the withdrawal of ground-handling services at Nigerian airports.
XEJet is seeking several declarations from the court, including a declaration that SAHCO had no contractual right to suspend or withdraw ground-handling services in the circumstances alleged by the airline.
The airline is asking for ₦1 billion in general damages over the alleged breach of confidentiality and another ₦100 million in damages concerning the withdrawal of ground-handling services.
The second action involves AGHAN and concerns statements published about XEJet's alleged outstanding obligations.
XEJet says the information released publicly portrayed the airline as having failed to meet its financial obligations and payment arrangements.
The airline disputes that characterization and is asking the court to award damages over what it describes as false and defamatory publications.
Across the two actions, XEJet is seeking a total of ₦16.1 billion in damages.
THE GROUND-HANDLING AGREEMENT
At the centre of the dispute is a Standard Ground Handling Agreement between XEJet and SAHCO.
According to documents described in the court proceedings, the agreement became effective on January 1, 2026.
The agreement covered ground-handling services for XEJet's aircraft, passengers and baggage at Abuja, Lagos, Benin, Asaba and Warri airports.
Ground handling is an essential component of commercial aviation.
While passengers generally see an airline's aircraft, pilots and cabin crew as the most visible parts of a flight operation, a significant amount of work takes place around an aircraft while it is on the ground.
Ground-handling services can include passenger processing, baggage handling, aircraft marshalling, loading and unloading, towing, push-back operations and load control.
These services must be coordinated carefully because aircraft turnaround times are closely connected to the ability of an airline to maintain its schedule.
For an airline operating from multiple airports, losing access to a ground-handling provider can therefore have significant operational implications.
XEJet argues that SAHCO's contractual obligations did not permit the company to withdraw those services in the manner alleged.
SAHCO's position on the allegations will be determined through the legal process.
HOW THE PAYMENT DISPUTE DEVELOPED
The dispute reportedly began with outstanding invoices between the airline and its ground-handling provider.
According to XEJet's court filings, SAHCO wrote to the airline on September 4, 2026, requesting settlement of invoices contained in a statement of account dated August 15.
The airline said it responded by entering discussions with SAHCO and participating in a reconciliation exercise designed to establish the amounts actually owed.
The reconciliation process was intended to examine the account invoice by invoice.
XEJet said SAHCO did not suspend services when the initial payment deadline passed and continued providing ground-handling services.
The situation changed after another letter from SAHCO dated September 23.
According to XEJet, that letter requested payment within three working days and indicated that ground-handling services could be suspended if the airline did not make payment or reach a satisfactory payment arrangement.
The deadline was stated to be September 28.
XEJet alleges that SAHCO nevertheless withdrew ground-handling services at about 8 a.m. on September 28.
The airline maintains that the withdrawal occurred before the deadline specified in SAHCO's letter had expired.
That point is now part of the legal dispute.
XEJET'S ACCOUNT OF THE PAYMENTS
XEJet says it made payments toward the outstanding account during the period in question.
According to the airline's court filings, it made two payments totalling ₦7 million on September 28.
The airline says those payments were made through two bank transfers of ₦2 million and ₦5 million respectively.
XEJet further says it made additional payments on September 29.
Those later transfers reportedly totalled ₦208.898 million.
According to the airline, the combined amount paid to SAHCO between September 28 and September 29 was ₦215.898 million.
XEJet describes that amount as full settlement of the account.
The airline's position is that it was still engaged in discussions with SAHCO and that it had already begun making payments when the dispute involving the ground-handling services and subsequent public statements developed.
The question of whether the payments constituted full settlement, whether they were made under an agreed arrangement and whether SAHCO was contractually entitled to withdraw services are matters that may be examined during the court proceedings.
DISPUTE OVER INFORMATION GIVEN TO AGHAN
Another major issue in the case is the alleged disclosure of account information.
XEJet says information concerning its commercial relationship with SAHCO was confidential.
The airline argues that details such as invoices, account balances, payment history and discussions between the two companies should not have been released to third parties without its permission.
XEJet specifically challenges the alleged disclosure of information to AGHAN.
The airline maintains that AGHAN was not a party to the ground-handling agreement between XEJet and SAHCO.
The question of how information from the airline's account reached the association is therefore part of the legal dispute.
XEJet wants the court to determine whether SAHCO's actions breached the confidentiality provisions of the agreement.
It is also asking for an injunction preventing further disclosure of information concerning its account to AGHAN, the media or other third parties.
The case therefore extends beyond the question of unpaid invoices.
It raises a contractual issue concerning how commercial information exchanged between an airline and an aviation service provider should be handled.
AGHAN'S ROLE IN THE DISPUTE
The second suit involves the Aviation Ground Handlers Association of Nigeria.
XEJet says AGHAN issued a statement concerning the airline's alleged outstanding obligations to members of the association.
The airline disputes the substance of that statement.
According to XEJet, it did not owe money to other members of AGHAN apart from the disputed account involving SAHCO.
The airline also says no final payment plan had been concluded with SAHCO or AGHAN before the publication.
XEJet is asking the court to consider whether the statements published about its financial obligations were false and defamatory.
It is seeking ₦10 billion in general damages for alleged libel and an additional ₦5 billion in aggravated and exemplary damages.
The airline is also seeking an order requiring retraction and apology and wants the defendants to remove the publications complained about.
The legal claims remain contested matters.
A court will have to determine whether the statements were made, whether they were defamatory, whether any applicable defence exists and whether the claimant suffered legally compensable damage.
WHY GROUND HANDLING MATTERS TO AIRLINES
The dispute also highlights the importance of ground-handling companies to Nigeria's aviation industry.
Airlines depend on ground handlers for a wide range of services required before and after flights.
When an aircraft arrives at an airport, ground teams help with passenger movement, baggage operations, aircraft positioning, loading, unloading and other activities.
For airlines operating scheduled flights, delays or interruptions to ground-handling services can affect the wider flight schedule.
A dispute between an airline and a ground handler can therefore become an operational issue if services are withdrawn.
At the same time, ground-handling companies need mechanisms to manage commercial relationships with airlines, particularly where payments are delayed or accounts are disputed.
Contracts between the parties are intended to define the rights and obligations of each side.
The XEJet case will therefore be closely tied to the interpretation of the particular agreement signed by the two companies.
CONFIDENTIALITY AND COMMERCIAL INFORMATION
Another broader issue raised by the case is the handling of confidential commercial information in the aviation sector.
Airlines routinely exchange sensitive information with suppliers and service providers.
This can include financial records, passenger-related information, operational arrangements, pricing information, contracts and payment histories.
Confidentiality clauses are designed to establish boundaries around how such information can be used and disclosed.
In XEJet's case, the airline is asking the court to determine whether the specific information concerning its account fell within the confidentiality obligations contained in its agreement with SAHCO.
The court may also have to examine whether any contractual or legal exception permitted disclosure.
Until those questions are determined, the allegations should not be treated as established facts.
IMPACT ON THE AIRLINE
XEJet has told the court that the dispute and subsequent publications affected its business relationships.
The airline alleges that the reports concerning its financial position caused creditors, aircraft lessors and business partners to seek clarification from its management.
That allegation forms part of XEJet's wider damages claim.
For an airline, perceptions concerning its ability to meet financial obligations can be commercially significant.
Aviation businesses operate through relationships with aircraft owners, lessors, airports, maintenance companies, fuel suppliers, ground handlers, insurers and other service providers.
Any public dispute over payments can therefore create additional pressure on those relationships, particularly where information about an account is published before the parties have resolved their disagreement.
XEJet's legal action seeks to establish that the information released about its account was not accurate and that the publication caused harm to the airline's reputation and commercial relationships.
Those claims remain subject to judicial determination.
SAHCO'S POSITION WILL BE PART OF THE LEGAL PROCESS
The allegations in the suits are claims advanced by XEJet.
Filing a lawsuit does not establish that the defendant committed the alleged breach.
SAHCO will have the opportunity to respond to XEJet's claims and present its own evidence concerning the agreement, the account, the payment requests and the withdrawal of ground-handling services.
Similarly, AGHAN will have an opportunity to defend the allegations relating to the publication of information about the airline.
The eventual outcome will depend on the evidence presented and the interpretation of the relevant agreements and laws by the court.
This distinction is particularly important because the dispute involves allegations of breach of contract, confidentiality and defamation, all of which require judicial consideration before conclusions can be reached.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
The next stage will be the progression of the two suits before the Federal Capital Territory High Court.
The court will be required to examine the contractual documents, communications between the parties, payment records and other evidence relevant to the claims.
Among the issues likely to require consideration are whether the information concerning XEJet's account was contractually confidential, whether SAHCO was entitled to withdraw ground-handling services when it did, whether the payments made by XEJet settled the account and whether statements made about the airline were false and defamatory.
The court will also have to consider the damages claimed by XEJet if liability is established.
The airline is seeking ₦16.1 billion across the two actions, but the filing of a claim does not guarantee that the amount sought will ultimately be awarded.
The court could accept some claims, reject others or determine that the evidence does not establish liability.
SIGNIFICANCE FOR NIGERIA'S AVIATION INDUSTRY
Beyond the immediate dispute involving XEJet, SAHCO and AGHAN, the case illustrates the importance of clear contractual relationships within Nigeria's aviation sector.
Airlines and service providers operate in a highly coordinated environment where disagreements over payments, service levels and contractual rights can affect flight operations.
Clear payment procedures, dispute-resolution mechanisms and confidentiality obligations can help reduce uncertainty when disagreements arise.
Where disputes cannot be resolved commercially, the courts provide a mechanism for determining contractual rights and liabilities.
The XEJet case will therefore be followed not only because of the amount of damages being claimed but also because of the questions surrounding the relationship between an airline, its ground-handling provider and an industry association.
For now, the central issues remain before the court.
XEJet maintains that its account information was contractually confidential, that the withdrawal of ground-handling services was wrongful and that statements made about its financial obligations were false.
SAHCO and AGHAN will have the opportunity to respond through the judicial process.
Until the court makes its determinations, the allegations against the defendants remain allegations and should not be treated as established facts.
The case now places the contractual and operational dispute firmly within the Nigerian judicial system, where the parties' agreements, payment records, communications and other evidence will determine the next stage of the matter.