Atimpoku Fuel case: Vivo Energy witness admits petrol sold to customer contained water

The quality of fuel sold to customers at the Atimpoku Shell Fuel Station became the focus of cross-examination in a case where a customer has sued Vivo Energy, operators of Shell, over alleged fuel contamination.

The first defence witness, John Delase-Michael, a retailer at the Atimpoku Shell station, stated in his witness statement that the fuel sold to the plaintiff had, unknown to the company, been infiltrated with water.

Under cross-examination from counsel for the plaintiff, John Jaja, led by Dela Blagogee, the witness admitted that the petrol sold was mixed with water.

The witness, however, told the court presided over by Justice Isaac Addo that “that was the first time we sold fuel mixed with water due to the heavy downpour.”

Plaintiff’s case

The plaintiff, Edmund Barwuah, through his lawyers, sued Vivo Energy for its Shell station at Atimpoku, near the Adomi Bridge in the Eastern Region, claiming that petrol sold there was contaminated with water.

Barwuah was among many customers who bought fuel contaminated with water on August 28, 2022, an incident that led to the temporary closure of the station by the National Petroleum Authority (NPA).

In a suit filed at the High Court in Accra, the plaintiff argued that Vivo Energy owed a duty of care to ensure that fuel sold at its stations meets required standards. He alleged that this duty “was breached by Vivo alleging selfish and unholy financial gain.”

He added that damage to his car caused him to miss a scheduled business meeting, costing him a business opportunity worth GH¢2.5 million.

Barwuah is seeking special damages of GH¢2.5 million, an order requiring Vivo Energy to replace his 2017 Ford Explorer with a similar vehicle, and GH¢600 per day for the loss of use of his car from August 28 until the replacement vehicle is provided.

The company later explained that water had leaked into the underground tank following heavy rainfall and issued an apology for the incident.

Cross-examination

Counsel for the plaintiff suggested that when the plaintiff and his friend returned to the station to report the contamination, the witness initially disputed the claim.

He also hesitated when asked to dispense the fuel into a container to verify whether it contained water. The witness explained: “I initially did not agree to do so because the filling station did not approve of us doing that, with reasons that dispensing fuel into containers could cause fire outbreak and other accidents.”

Under pressure, he eventually dispensed the fuel into a container and confirmed it was mixed with water.

When asked whether his hesitation was because he knew the fuel was contaminated, he denied the suggestion, explaining: “This was the first time something of that sort had happened at our workplace.”

Recklessness allegation

Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the testimony highlighted the defendant’s recklessness and disregard for its own safety protocols.

The witness maintained that was not the case, stating: “This is because this was the first time an incident of that sort had happened, and I only dispensed the fuel into the container under immense pressure. I also did that to ensure that there was no commotion and for understanding to prevail because the customers were not cooperating from the onset of their arrival at the filling station.”

Although the witness admitted that there was no record to support his claim of pressure, he said: “It is so that there is no record before this court of that fact, but it was because of the pressure they mounted on me that pushed me to do so.”

When asked if any customers returned with weapons, he confirmed: “It is so that none of the customers returned wielding weapons or to attack any of the workers on duty at that time.”