Atimpoku fuel case: Witness admits fuel sold to plaintiff mixed with water

The content of the fuel sold to customers of the Atimpoku Shell Fuel Station became the subject of cross-examination in the case in which a customer has sued Vivo Energy, operators of Shell, over the quality of fuel. 

The first defence witness, John Delase-Michael, a retailer at the Atimpoku Shell Fuel Station, in his witness statement to firm up the company’s defence, stated that the fuel sold to the plaintiff had, unknown to the company, been adulterated with water. 

Subjected to cross-examination, the witness admitted this under cross-examination from counsel for the plaintiff, John Jaja, who was led by Dela Blagogee.

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

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 is replaced, among others.

The company subsequently, in a statement, explained that water had leaked into the underground tank of the station after heavy rain in the area and subsequently apologised for the incident.

Cross-examination

Counsel suggested to the witness that when the plaintiff and his friend returned to the filling station to inform the witness again of the contamination, the witness disputed that the fuel was contaminated with water.

Counsel again said when the plaintiff and his friend asked the witness to dispense the fuel into a container to verify whether or not there was water present in same, the Witness initially hesitated.

The witness, who answered in the positive, said, “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 outbreaks and other accidents.”

But when the pressure mounted on him, he dispensed the fuel into the container, and after he had dispensed the fuel into the container, it happened that it was mixed with some water.

Counsel for the plaintiff again put to him that his initial hesitation to dispense what was supposed to be petrol into the container was because they had always been aware that the fuel they were selling to the public, including the plaintiff, was contaminated and did not want to be exposed.

While denying the suggestion, he explained that it was because “this was the first time something of that sort had happened at our workplace”.

He admitted, when it was suggested to him that he had not placed before the court any evidence that he was under immense pressure and that there was going to be commotion.

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”. 

Asked if he could confirm to the court that none of the affected customers returned to the station with weapons, he replied, “It is so that none of the customers returned wielding weapons or to attack any of the workers on duty at that time”.