A couple of months ago, one founder’s curious statement raised eyebrows in the African startup/venture capital scene, and the words go something like this;
“I didn’t leave Lidya to pursue other projects. The existing investors took control of the company in an unjust manner. Therefore, I’m currently litigating them in the U.S.”
Those words make up Ercin Eksin’s unvarnished statement, included as an update to a TechCrunch article dated July 7, 2021, announcing Lidya’s USD 8.3 Mn pre-Series B raise while also casually mentioning that Eksin had “left Lidya to pursue other projects.” Eksin had rebutted.
When the above comment from Eksin (the Belgian national who had co-led the Nigeria-born SME financing startup known as Lidya as Co-Founder/Co-CEO since 2016) became public in July this year, it raised a lot of questions and virtually no concrete answers, naturally.
So, what really played out at Lidya? What sort of dispute culminated in Eksin leaving the startup under circumstances that appear to be far from amicable?
As it turns out, it’s quite the story; one littered with allegations of questionable practices and inappropriate behaviour. There are claims of “sketchy dealings”, as WeeTracker learned from sources, in the early-day foundational moves that essentially helped Lidya take off.
Besides that, the dispute-ridden circumstances surrounding the founding of Lidya is itself a point of discord that remains unresolved to this day.
It might help to think of the entire puzzle as a slightly complicated subject that can only be dissected with a three-pronged fork made up of the following; founder-investor discord, a previous startup squabble that was kept under wraps, and a curious partnership laden with questionable dealings that possibly gave Lidya its start.
First, a primer.
Per information gathered by WeeTracker, the bone of contention between Eksin and “existing investors’ ‘ is a cantankerous affair, no doubt. But there’s more to discover than Eksin’s recent troubles with Lidya’s investors.
Digging deeper, the recent issues appear to be another instalment of feisty founder-funder disagreements that Eksin and his Co-Founder, Akintunde “Tunde” Kehinde, have been collectively embroiled in before. Only, this time, Eksin is all on his own.
Once upon a time, Eksin and Kehinde were among the earliest executives at Africa’s biggest e-tailer, Jumia. In fact, the latter is generally described as the Co-Founder of Jumia Nigeria.
After leaving Jumia within months of each other, the duo linked up on a new startup. They co-founded a company known as Africa Courier Express (ACE) which delivers logistics solutions to both businesses and consumers; a business that may have been conceived during their spell at Jumia.
The Co-Founders would go on to start another company, Lidya: a digital lending business that serves SMEs in Nigeria and parts of Eastern Europe, which currently boasts 25,000 disbursed loans running into nearly USD 100 Mn. But the Co-Founder’s decision to jettison ACE and launch Lidya caused problems and left a trail of disgruntled investors.
Starting from the back end of 2016, Kehinde and Eksin got Lidya going in Nigeria with the former handling investor relations, commercial transactions, and external representation while the latter tended to operations, technology, product development, and finance. And the company would close a USD 1.3 Mn seed round by 2017. However, a few well-placed sources, privy to the situation remain convinced that the traction that gave the startup its seed round was the result of a questionable partnership.

Source: Ventureburn
Come 2021, Eksin finds himself forced out of Lidya following a disagreement with investors while his long-time partner, Kehinde, now holds the reins as sole CEO with the blessing of investors, apparently.
“Tunde Kehinde is the CEO of Lidya. Tunde and the team are focused on growing Lidya’s operations in Nigeria, Poland and the Czech Republic. We continue to wish Ercin the best in his future endeavours,” says a Lidya spokesperson in a statement to WeeTracker.
In response to queries centred on the specific circumstances of Eksin’s ‘forced departure’ from Lidya, Lidya and its investors maintained that it is “a personnel matter that they cannot comment on publicly.”
On his part, Eksin told WeeTracker; “the case is currently in litigation therefore I can’t comment on the specifics at the moment.”
As it turns out, Eksin is currently embroiled in a legal tussle with Lidya’s investors who he believes unjustly froze him out and subsequently removed him from the company.
Court documents obtained by WeeTracker tell a story of alleged misconduct, an internal investigation, and a unanimous decision.
Lifting the lid on Lidya
On Thursday, February 4, 2021, Eksin, through attorneys, Fox Rothschild LLP, filed an arbitration application in New York via the American Arbitration Association. For clarity, arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution that happens outside the courts, only in the face of very specific conditions consented to in a pre-existing agreement binding the disputing parties.
The respondents named include Lidya Holdings Inc., its investors (Bamboo Capital Partners, Accion Venture Lab, Flourish Ventures, Omidyar Network), as well as three “Outside Directors” who are essentially the investor representatives that, along with Kehinde and Eksin, make up Lidya’s Board. The Outside Directors named are: Ashley Lewis of Accion, Ameya Upadhyay of Flourish, Christian Ruehmer of Bamboo.
In Eksin’s arbitration application, it reads that although Lidya’s investors had dealt with him in bad faith since mid-2018, it was a “harassment” allegation that brought things to a flashpoint.
Eksin alleges that “unfounded” harassment allegations were laid against him in mid-2020 by a former Lidya employee who has close ties to one of the company’s investors. The nature of the alleged harassment is unclear but Eksin claims it had something to do with a disagreement over a demand for unearned incentives and he claims the allegations of harassment are baseless*. [ refer to the note in the footer]
In late 2020, investor representatives discussed terms with Eksin with regard to voluntary resignation. But those talks stalled due to Eksin’s demand for investors to buy out some or all his shares at a price he deemed satisfactory.
So, on January 12, 2021, the Lidya Board met telephonically to make a final decision with Eksin present. The Outside Directors – plus Kehinde – voted unanimously to terminate Eksin’s employment as Co-CEO effective the following day.
In Eksin’s application for arbitration, he claims he had been frozen out, removed as Co-CEO by investors who collaborated with a former colleague to take control of Lidya, pressured to vacate his position as a Director on the Board and deprived of participation in Board decisions, and frustrated out a USD 10 Mn funding opportunity that he had sourced.
Eksin also claims he had been willfully denied Directors and Officers Liability (D&O) insurance and employment agreement, subjected to a “one-sided” investigation, threatened and bullied by the investor group, and blocked out of his domain.com, AWS, and Google Workspace accounts by Lidya employees, including his former partner, Kehinde.
On the other hand, Lidya, its investors, and their representatives (i.e the respondents named in Eksin’s application) filed a Complaint as Plaintiffs against Eksin in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware on February 8, in an effort to stop the arbitration request which the Plaintiffs describe as “meritless.” And their account of what transpired expectedly contrasts Eksin’s claims.
The plaintiffs contend that Eksin had been determined unfit and terminated as Co-CEO following thorough investigation and assessment in the face of “unreasonable demands, accusations, and threats by Eksin.”
It’s also stated that Eksin is well aware that he was employed at an at-will basis, which – according to the company’s bye-laws that Eksin approved and acknowledged – meant that he (Eksin) served at the pleasure of the Board and can be suspended by the Board with or without cause. Moreover, the Complaint mentions that Eksin was duly represented in the investigations and his termination followed due process.
The investors assert that Eksin had demanded extravagant buyout of his shares in exchange for departing the company on consensual terms but when he didn’t get his desire, he doubled down on his unfounded allegations aimed at coercing payment to which he is not entitled, and the arbitration request is similarly motivated.
Further, the Complaint denied Eksin’s claims that his status as a Director on the Board was threatened and it says that Eksin became belligerent and refused to fulfil fiduciary and contractual obligations which demand that he must return all the company’s property in his possession or control after his employment was terminated.
Several other points raised in the complaint oppose each of the claims Eksin made as either unfounded, false, or the product of a fertile imagination. As it stands, the dispute is an active legal matter ridden with motions, claims, counter-claims, and a plethora of reliefs sought.
In any case, it won’t be the first time Eksin and Kehinde have found themselves in the middle of some kind of conflict with investors.
Taking it all the way back
After their time at Jumia, Eksin and Kehinde joined up to launch ACE, their first company together.
ACE launched in Nigeria in 2013 and given that it was under the leadership of two individuals who, between them, boast glowing points like Harvard/Chicago education and a wealth of experience in both corporate and venture business, it seemed in good hands.
And it did appear so for a while as ACE would go on to raise a total of USD 3.3 in two rounds Mn by 2015, while doing the business of helping partners and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) ship things locally and globally.
But things didn’t stay ‘well-and-good’ for very long as Eksin and Kehinde hit a snag with ACE, disagreed with investors, and began to chase the idea that became Lidya.
Of course, ACE investors – which include Interswitch, Savannah Fund, the family offices of a number of local high net-worth individuals (HNIs), angel investors, and several friends of friends and associates of associates linked to Eksin and Tunde – kicked against it. But the Co-Founders continued with their new plans, mindless of possible agreement breaches and potential consequences.
Problems began to arise at ACE starting from 2016, not long after the Nigerian payments giant, Interswitch, shelled out USD 850 K (through its now-dormant USD 10 Mn ePayment fund for African startups), as part of a seed investment in ACE.
Soon after, it came to light Kehinde and Eksin were pursuing an opportunity in SME financing, though this was initially thought to be a vertical within ACE, according to an ACE investor.
However, as it became clear that the Co-Founders had, in fact, started a separate company, presumably with resources meant for ACE, the atmosphere changed.
One of the individuals who represent one of the investment firms backing ACE spoke to WeeTracker on condition of anonymity given that the case remains an open matter some six years later. According to this source, the Co-Founders were initially cloaky about the details of the new business, until a dispute with Interswitch brought everything into the light.
“We initially thought the SME financing play was an extension of ACE given that logistics and financing have a connection in SMEs. But we didn’t know this was not the case until Kehinde told us they were being pressured by Interswitch, which I assume had found out they were launching a new separate company. What he [Kehinde] told us when he reached out with a complaint was that Interswitch was trying to bully them and take over their company,” the investor representative said.
According to the source, before long, all of ACE investors learned what was amiss and everyone – except Kehinde and Eksin, it seems – understood the grievance of the investors.
“Eventually, they revealed that there were two companies, ACE and Lidya, and they were raising money for the two companies at the same time. It was really strange. At one point, Eksin made a preposterous comment that we [the investors] were treating them like slaves for questioning their actions. I think they felt entitled to the success and that made them rationalise every off-the-book thing they did once difficulties arose at ACE,” the source said.
Claims and counter-claims
A letter seen by WeeTracker (sent by Interswitch’s legal counsel to Kehinde and Eksin), dated January 23, 207, cites a material breach of the share subscription agreement by the Co-Founders while also instructing them (Kehinde and Eksin) to cease and desist operations under Lidya.
The document mentions that the Co-Founders have exhibited a flagrant disregard of the terms agreed to by failing to devote all of their time to ACE; inappropriate use of ACE’s resources (office space, equipment, personnel, and finance) for Lidya; and the diversion of business meant for ACE’s finance/business arm to Lidya [particularly a potentially lucrative business secured from First City Monument Bank (FCMB)].
In addition, the letter listed other breaches related to failure to hold annual general meetings and issue audited reports since December 2014 in contravention of Nigeria’s Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA).
“Imagine my shock when HBS-educated Kehinde claimed he didn’t know that audited statements for ACE were mandatory. They kept acting like they didn’t understand why we were irritated,” the source mentioned.
“He [Kehinde] later told me that they started Lidya because they thought it would be easier to raise money for a fintech. In my view, they just knew they could get away with such a thing here. I think it all comes down to the fact that building a financing business required them to raise more funding; they knew raising more capital for ACE would dilute them further, so they decided to launch a whole new company,” the source claimed.
Eksin’s take on this matter is that ACE was a few months away from bankruptcy in the midst of an economic crisis in Nigeria and existing investors did not want to put in additional financing.
“We updated all the ACE investors proactively at the time in which they were fully aware that without further backing of the company, the company faces liquidation yet they chose not to invest further,” he told WeeTracker. Kehinde did not comment on this matter.
As the situation worsened, they got started with Lidya, and Eksin claims they did not use ACE’s resources for Lidya, and they informed ACE’s investors that they won’t be running ACE day-to-day, and even got some of ACE’s investors to back Lidya.
Eksin also claims audits were conducted on ACE’s accounts by EY and KPMG and no irregularities were discovered, though he wouldn’t share any supporting documentation, citing confidentiality clauses. Moreover, affected parties dispute this and maintain that the Co-Founders always sought to obfuscate.
A tumultuous time
A source from the ACE investor camp stated that they had refrained from putting more money into the startup due to the lack of consensus on a forward path and disagreements over the company’s spending on a foreign contractor at a time when currency exchange rates were very unstable in Nigeria.
The source also mentioned it had initially appeared that a financing arm under ACE was the way forward until it was discovered Eksin and Kehinde had chosen an option that is most convenient to them by launching Lidya as a separate company.
“After we heard about Lidya’s successful fundraiser, they initially said they were going to run the businesses together. We proposed maybe one being CEO of ACE, and the other being CEO of Lidya. That offer was rejected. They haven’t explained the choice to leave ACE investors out of Lidya. Jack Dorsey leads Square and then they created CashApp as a subsidiary of Square. Why couldn’t they have done a structure like that?,” said the source.
“For example, they could have created Lidya as a wholly-owned subsidiary of ACE and then raised for Lidya. They are presenting this like there weren’t options. I know that Eksin and Tunde know that there are multiple legal structures they could have explored. They chose the one that was most convenient for them,” the source added.
In response, Eksin argues no harm, no foul.
“If they really believed that we did something against the agreements and/or did something illegal, they could have easily taken legal action. There were some investors that were upset, especially the ones that didn’t invest in Lidya at the time. But ‘upset’ doesn’t mean the launch of Lidya is illegal or unethical. Those investors demanded free shares in Lidya because they backed us in ACE and we refused, that’s why they were upset,” he says.
Addressing this, another ACE investor representative told WeeTracker that only one or two ACE investors committed fresh capital to Lidya with the overwhelming majority shortchanged by the Co-Founders.
This source also mentioned that ACE’s investors opted to keep the matter quiet in the hopes of a resolution that is yet to happen to this day. As was explained, the matter has been kept under wraps and the parties involved opted not to go to the courts for reasons mostly tied to optics.
“As a lot of the investors are Nigerian HNIs, they felt uneasy during this conflict with the Co-Founders because they felt it would look like a bunch of older, powerful Nigerians bullying a young startup. I thought it was silly and this is where I actually disagree with the group,” the source said.
“The legal point has also been addressed. Investors don’t really want to. That doesn’t mean that what they did wasn’t in breach of a contract. Frankly, it doesn’t even mean that investors don’t think they breached contract. It simply means that investors don’t want to sue,” the investor representative reiterated.
According to persons familiar with the matter, there’s been a few feeble attempts to set things right with ACE and disgruntled investors in the past year or so, but nothing concrete has emerged as of yet.
Besides all these happenings at ACE, questions have also been raised about the early dealings through which Eksin and Kehinde possibly got Lidya off the ground.
Something to ponder
Back in 2013, Kehinde, Eksin, and a certain Polish national named Marek Zmyslowski crossed paths while they were all employed at Africa Internet Group (AIG), which eventually became Jumia.
One by one, they all moved on from Jumia eventually. And by the time they reconnected in 2016, Eksin and Kehinde were in the process of jettisoning ACE for Lidya while Zmyslowski was making progress with HotelOga [also Hotel Technology Solutions (HTS)]; a hotel booking platform he had set up in Nigeria having previously been employed at Jovago (a fringe AIG unit which later became Jumia Travel and has since been offloaded by Jumia).
While Kehinde and Eksin were engaged in founder-funder troubles of their own given the ACE/Lidya squabble, Zmyslowski would himself become the centre of a messy affair later on.

Source: NewswireNGR
This ‘messy affair’ is ridden with mountains of evidence backing claims from the investors who backed HotelOga that he (Zmysłowski) defrauded investors, brokered questionable deals, and siphoned off tens of thousands of dollars in company funds into his private account. Of course, Zmyslowski claims the opposite, alluding to a gang-up against him, though he has since departed Nigeria.
In any case, there is also evidence that Zmyslowski went behind their backs to make deals to sell the company and that he ran a Polish-registered entity, Hotel Online sp. z.o.o, where the hotel management software platform’s intellectual property (IP) was held, unbeknownst to HotelOga investors who were willfully kept in the dark through the designs of Zmyslowski and his Polish associates, including HotelOga Co-Founder, Maciej Prostak, and a group of Polish investors, plus an East African hospitality company.
(All these details will be treated in a separate story after WeeTracker gathers more information.)
Now, back to ties that bind Lidya and HotelOga.
According to Eksin, Lidya started by financing the invoices of the suppliers of the large businesses.
“We reached out to large companies as well as SMEs, that’s how we acquired the initial set of customers,” he says.
Starting from 2016, HotelOga became one of Lidya’s first clients and the arrangement was such that Lidya financed HotelOga’s operations by providing short-term loans against HotelOga invoices.
“Big OTAs like Expedia paid HotelOga in 60 days for clients bookings after the client hotel check-in, while HotelOga had to pay the hotel before the hotel check-in. HotelOga was still a startup without funding to secure this cashflow, which is why we used Lidya financing services,” Zmyslowski tells WeeTracker.
In the same vein, Eksin recalls they agreed that Lidya will finance the hotels directly at the point of guest check-in and HotelOga will pay back to Lidya after 30 days once they receive the payment back from Expedia.
“HotelOga and Expedia had an agreement at the time that HotelOga would process the payments for the hotels unless they explicitly choose to process on their own that’s why they were getting paid directly from Expedia,” Eksin tells WeeTracker.
“HotelOga decided to offer interest-free loans to the hotels to acquire them faster. As the project was a big success, after a few months, we signed an agreement with Expedia, HotelOga and Lidya to provide the loans directly to the hotels against the Expedia bookings and Lidya would start to process the payments directly with Expedia to scale the project,” he adds.
At that time in 2016, Lidya was just as much a fledgling startup as HotelOga, and it remains unclear how Lidya was capable enough – in terms of technological/financial structure – to assess risk and underwrite such loans to another startup that was just starting out.
But perhaps Lidya didn’t need to do all that as Lidya’s Co-Founders and Zmyslowski were noted by former employees to be chummy enough that Zmyslowski ditched HotelOga original offices despite the pricey lease and moved HotelOga’s operations to Lidya’s offices, even though it added another NGN 300 K to the monthly burn rate.
Also, WeeTracker gathered that Zmyslowski made the unilateral decision to handover the credit/receivables/payment processing business to Lidya despite established interest from investing partners who had put additional capital into a cash-strapped HotelOga based on the understanding that the investing partners would handle the payments side and other ancillary products and services that serve HotelOga’s customer base.
A deep source mentioned that Zmyslowski gave the business to Lidya and the terms of the deal are confounding.
“Without discussion and approval and in the absence of documentation, he borrowed NGN 22 Mn from Lidya. HotelOga was making only 2-4 percent on every booking, yet Lidya was charging HotelOga an average of 9.9 percent a month on the loans, which annualised is about 55 percent with some as high as 206 percent. It was a ridiculous rate for us but phenomenal for Lidya,” the source says.
“Also, I wonder how a technically-yet-to-fully-launch Lidya – which only kicked off in Nigeria after November 2016 – shelled out NGN 22 Mn. Who takes ~USD 70 K on a single name or credit risk that also happens to be a startup? Don’t even get me started on the regulatory hurdles to extend such a loan,” the source adds.
Be that as it may, WeeTracker learned from a source that Zmyslowski suddenly demanded that the sum of NGN 10 Mn be made to Lidya immediately without an invoice on January 24, 2017.
When HotelOga’s financial controller refused to oblige due to a feeling of suspicion and discomfort given the lack of transparency and documentation, as well as the sudden urgency of the request and Zmyslowski blatant refusal to attempt to restructure the payment with Lidya, Zmyslowski unceremoniously fired the finance official on February 3, 2017.
It was then communicated that Lidya, which had gotten itself in a position to collect payments for HotelOga, had no problems deducting what it was owed from the source: money collected by Lidya for HotelOga from big OTAs and other channels, which would result in HotelOga failing to pay the hotels on its platform.
According to the source, HotelOga was forced to make a payment of around NGN 6 Mn to Lidya to avoid disruption of its business but company officials remained suspicious of a “backdoor arrangement” between Zmyslowski and Lidya’s Co-Founders who were battling with ACE’s investors over Lidya at the time.
It was a point of concern that HotelOga funds might seed a disputed venture and expose HotelOga to litigation. Moreover, records had shown Lidya was paying Zmyslowski’s personal hotel expenses and passing the bill to HotelOga as of December 2016. It did seem like something wasn’t right.
As it turns out, authentic bank records seen by WeeTracker show that on February 16, 2017 – just two weeks after HotelOga’s finance personnel was forced to make that NGN 6 Mn payment to Lidya – Eksin, Lidya’s Co-Founder, personally wired USD 5,018.oo as “seed capital” into a Polish bank account belonging to Hotel Online, the previously mentioned Polish entity set up by Zmysłowski and Prostak, which actually owned the core technology and IP that HotelOga depends on.
Zmyslowski is said to have initially concealed the Polish entity from investors who backed the Nigerian entity, HotelOga, which by itself is little more than a shell company with contracts with Nigerian hotels and no technology.
By March 2017, Lidya announced a USD 1.3 Mn seed round, weeks after the loan issue with HotelOga and a strange ~USD 5 K payment made by Lidya’s Co-Founder to a foreign entity tied to Zmyslowski, who also happens to be HotelOga’s Co-Founder/CEO.
One source told WeeTracker that the relationship between Zmyslowski and Lidya’s Co-Founders was an “unholy union” that seeded Lidya.
“They got traction by playing dirty with Marek and claiming HotelOga’s customers as their own so that investors would be nudged to invest in Lidya. It’s always been fishy from the start, that’s why Lidya is now in Poland and Czech Republic even though it’s supposed to be a lending platform for African SMEs,” the source argued.
On their part, Eksin and Zmyslowski both maintain that the ~USD 5 K direct transfer which Eksin made to the Hotel Online account in 2017 was an angel investment, and that the early loans to HotelOga came with the best terms in the market with all the necessary approvals obtained – something that former HotelOga officials dispute.
As a side note, Zmyslowski initially claimed he had no recollection of the wire transfer from Eksin but eventually recalled and confirmed the transaction after a follow-up by WeeTracker.
When queried as to why he was never listed among Hotel Online shareholders in public company documents available online from the Polish public register (given that he invested in the company), Eksin says he never received his shares though he wouldn’t volunteer any documents to authenticate an angel investment deal or a trail that can be used to establish funding talks with Hotel Online.
“As I believed in the potential of HotelOga and Marek was raising financing for his company at the time, I decided to invest in his company and wired UD 5 K as an angel investment. I ended up never receiving my shares. Unfortunately, that was the only sour angel investment that I had in Nigeria,” he says.
As for how the then-beleaguered Lidya was able to bankroll HotelOga to such an extent in the beginning, the embattled Lidya Co-Founder maintains Lidya was launched with financing from himself, Kehinde, and ACE investors that opted to also back Lidya. However, question marks would probably continue to linger.
——————————————————————————————————————
NOTE: This is a developing story and is based on the accounts of persons involved in the matter. This article is an aggregated version of claims made by all the parties and WeeTracker takes no responsibility for wrong information provided by any of the parties.
*As per a document seen by WeeTracker, the harassment case against Ercin Eksin could not be established by a subcommittee’s informal findings.
