A Lagos-based legal practitioner, Dr Sheriff Abiodun Adesanya, has dragged Air Peace Limited before the Federal High Court in Lagos, challenging what he described as the airline’s unlawful seat-only business-class upgrade policy.

The suit, marked FHC/L/CS/364/2026, is pending before the Court, presided over by Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke.

The legal action is asking the question as to whether an airline can lawfully sell a business-class upgrade to a passenger, place the passenger in the premium cabin, but deny the accompanying services ordinarily attached to that class without first making full disclosure.

Adesanya, who is representing himself in the matter, told the court that he paid for a business-class upgrade during a London–Lagos–London trip, but was allegedly served economy-class meals and received what he described as economy-level service despite being seated in the business-class cabin.

According to the suit, the incident allegedly first occurred on a London Gatwick–Lagos flight and was repeated on the return leg, even after he had issued a pre-action notice to the airline.

The applicant contended that Air Peace operates a policy under which passengers who pay for an upgrade are entitled only to premium seating, but not the full range of business-class services.

He argued that the limitation was neither disclosed before payment nor contained in any published terms and conditions made available to passengers.

In the originating summons, Adesanya is seeking several declaratory reliefs, including a pronouncement that the practice amounts to misrepresentation, unfair treatment, and a breach of statutory consumer protection obligations.

The suit invoked provisions of the Civil Aviation Act 2022, the Nigerian Civil Aviation Regulations 2023, and the Montreal Convention 1999, all of which govern airline obligations and passenger rights.

He is also seeking refunds and damages over the airline’s alleged failure to provide services commensurate with the upgraded class.

The applicant is relying on what he described as a written admission by Air Peace confirming the existence of the alleged seat-only upgrade policy.

The document, tendered as an exhibit before the court, reportedly stated that passengers who pay for upgrades retain economy-class entitlements, including meals, while benefiting only from enhanced seating comfort in the business-class cabin.

Air Peace, however, maintained that passengers are informed of the limitations before payment and that business-class catering is typically pre-ordered.

In response, Air Peace, through its counsel, Chief Oluwole Afolabi, filed a preliminary objection asking the court to strike out the suit.

The airline argued that the matter is heavily fact-dependent and involves substantial disputes, particularly regarding what was communicated to the passenger and the exact nature of the services rendered.

According to the airline, those disputed issues make the case unsuitable for determination by originating summons, insisting that the matter should proceed through oral evidence and cross-examination.

However, Adesanya opposed the objection, describing it as misconceived and a deliberate attempt to delay proceedings.

In a counter-affidavit deposed to by a litigation clerk in his law firm, the applicant argued that there are no substantial disputes of fact requiring oral evidence.

He further maintained that Air Peace failed to file any counter-affidavit directly challenging the facts already placed before the court.

Relying on authorities including Inakoju v. Adeleke and Ajomale v. Yaduat, Adesanya contended that unchallenged affidavit evidence ought to be deemed admitted.

He also argued that the central issue before the court is a pure question of law, whether an airline can lawfully sell a restricted business-class upgrade without first disclosing the service limitations to passengers.

The applicant additionally raised a procedural objection, contending that Air Peace’s preliminary objection was filed outside the 31 days prescribed by the Federal High Court Rules and is therefore incompetent. (Nigerian Tribune)