Atimpoku fuel case: ‘I’m unaware of guidelines for rainy period’

The Station Manager of the Atimpoku branch of Vivo Energy Ghana Limited (Shell Filling Station) has told the High Court in Accra that he is not aware of any documented guideline by the fuel company to be followed mandatorily when it rains.

John Delase-Michael was testifying in court in a matter in which a customer had sued Vivo Energy, operators of Shell, over the quality of fuel.

When asked if he was aware of official guidelines to be followed when it was raining at the filling station, Delase-Michael said he was not.

Delase-Michael acknowledged a 2015 fire incident at circle where citizens lost their lives due to water infiltrating an underground fuel storage tank. 
Counsel suggested the defendant had taken its customers for granted but Delase-Michael disagreed.

Case 

The Plaintiff, Edmund Barwuah, through his lawyers, sued Vivo Energy over its Shell fuel station at Atimpoku, near the Adomi Bridge in the Eastern Region, for selling petrol mixed with water to unsuspecting customers.

The plaintiff was one of the many people who bought petrol adulterated with water from the Atimpoku Shell fuel station on August 28, 2022, which led to the closure of the station by the National Petroleum Authority (NPA).

In a suit filed before the High Court in Accra, the plaintiff argued that Vivo Energy owed a duty of care to the public to ensure that fuel products sold at its filling stations met the required standards.

However, that duty, according to the plaintiff, was breached by Vivo, alleging “selfish and unholy financial gain.”

The plaintiff added that due to the damage caused to his car, he missed a scheduled business meeting, thereby costing him a business opportunity worth GH¢2.5 million.

He is, therefore, asking for special damages of GH¢ 2.5 million, an order on Vivo Energy to replace his 2017 Ford Explorer with a similar vehicle of the same specification, damages of GH¢600 per day for the loss of use of his car starting from August 28, 2025 to the day the vehicle would be replaced, among others.

The company in a statement, however, explained that water had leaked into the underground tank of the station after heavy rains in the area, which it subsequently apologised for.

Cross-examination

Delase-Michael, who was under the cross-examination of counsel for the plaintiff last Thursday, April 2, 2026, admitted the fuel was contaminated.

"I am further putting it to you that you have not placed before this court any evidence, whatsoever, of the alleged assessment of these critical national institutions which are in the position to protect the public interest," Delase-Michael admitted, adding, "I have not brought any report to this court."

It was the case of Counsel for the Plaintiff that there was no assessment to ascertain whether the effect of the fuel leakage went beyond the filling station.

Asked if he still stood by his earlier claim that he invited the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to investigate, Delase-Michael said, "That is true, but it is not in my power to have called the EPA to come and investigate the cause on that day.

But EPA, Fire Service and NPA all came to the filling station, having been invited by our head office."

Counsel asked if these institutions gave him a report on their assessment.

Delase-Michael said: "To me, I will say no because after the investigation was made, I was not informed of the outcome.

However, the authority which invited them to conduct the investigation, I believe the report was issued to them."

When asked if the defendant informed him about a report on the alleged assessment, he said, "That has not been mentioned to me."

He added that there were no discussions with him about the alleged assessment of the impact of the fuel leakage.