A dispute has intensified between McDan Aviation Handling Services Limited and Ghana Airports Company Limited (GACL) after the airport operator terminated the company’s Fixed Base Operator (FBO) licence at Kotoka International Airport in Accra.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!GACL announced on Thursday, March 12, that it had ended the agreement with McDan Aviation Handling Services Limited, citing the company’s failure to settle outstanding licence fees, rent and royalties linked to its operations at Terminal 1 of the airport.
The licence agreement, which was signed in August 2022, allowed McDan Aviation to provide FBO services within designated sections of Terminal 1. Under the arrangement, the company was required to pay periodic licence fees as well as other financial obligations to the airport authority.
However, GACL maintains that McDan Aviation defaulted on these payments soon after the contract took effect.
In response, McDan Aviation has strongly rejected the manner in which the agreement was terminated, insisting that the airport operator failed to follow procedures clearly outlined in the contract.
In a statement issued on March 12, the company said the agreement required GACL to issue a 90-day eviction notice before taking steps to remove it from the facility.
According to McDan Aviation, that clause was designed to safeguard the significant investments it had made at the terminal.
The company also alleged that GACL took action at the facility despite a pending court process.
McDan Aviation said GACL had been served with a motion for an interlocutory injunction on March 10, 2026. It claims that, in spite of the court order, officials of the airport authority entered the terminal in the early hours of March 11 and removed equipment and other property belonging to the company.
The aviation firm described the move as both a breach of contract and a disregard for the authority of the court.
McDan Aviation says it will pursue legal action to challenge the termination of the licence and protect its contractual rights, arguing that both the agreement and the court process were ignored.