It has emerged at the High Court in Accra that fuel sold to businessman, Edmund Barwuah, at the Atimpoku Shell Fuel Station was contaminated with water.
John Delase-Michael, a Retailer at the Atimpoku Shell Fuel Station, who is testifying as the First Defence Witness for Vivo Energy, operators of Shell, made this admission while under cross-examination by lawyers for the Plaintiff.
“After I had dispensed the fuel into the container (from Plaintiff’s car), it happened that it was mixed with some water,” the Witness told the Court under further cross-examination from lawyers of the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff, Edmund Barwuah, through his lawyers, sued Vivo Energy for its Shell fuel station at Atimpoku, near the Adomi Bridge in the Eastern Region, for selling petrol mixed with water to unsuspecting customers.
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 meet the required standards.
But that duty was breached by Vivo for “selfish and unholy financial gain.”
The Plaintiff was one of the many people who bought petrol contaminated 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).
The company subsequently, in a statement, explained that water had leaked into the underground tank of the station after a heavy rain in the area and subsequently apologised for the incident.
Scrutiny
Under further cross-examination from lawyers of the Plaintiff, the first Defence Witness told the Court that, “after I had dispensed the fuel into the container (from Plaintiff’s car), it happened that it was mixed with some water.”
Counsel for the Plaintiff, John Jaja, who was led by Dela Blagogee to subject the witness to further cross-examination, put 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 outbreak 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 is supposed to be petrol into the container was because “you had always been aware that the fuel you were selling to the public, including the Plaintiff, was contaminated and did not want to be exposed.”
While denying such assertion, he explained that it was because, “this was the first time something of that sort had happened at our workplace.”
When Counsel for the Plaintiff sought clarity if he was telling the court that all it takes for the Defendant, whom he represents, “to abandon its alleged standard operating procedures in relation to safety standards was for someone to ask you to do so,.”
The Witness responded by saying, “that is not exactly so,” adding that, “I only did that out of the pressure that was being mounted on me and also to show that there was nothing that was being hidden from the public.”
Asked if he had the choice to refuse to dispense the fuel into the container, he said he had no choice.
“My lord, at that time, I had no choice because if I had refused, it would have looked as if I was hiding something from the public,” the Witness said.
Recklessness
Counsel for the Plaintiff said the Witness’s “testimony reemphasises the point that the Defendant is reckless in its handling and selling of its fuel products and has little or no regard for its own alleged safety protocols,” the Witness said that was not the case.
He explained that, “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.”
When it was put 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 admitted.
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 said, “It is so that none of the customers returned wielding weapons or to attack any of the workers on duty at that time.”
The Witness said the Atimpoku Fuel Station, after the incident occurred, “we stopped working for a while before we resumed.”
Asked by Counsel when the Defendant Atimpoku filling station resumed operation, the Witness said, “The filling station resumed operation in February 2023.”
He said, “After the incident happened, some persons were sent to come and collect the remaining fuel from the tanks, and they took it away.”
Asked to tell the Court the quantity of the remaining contaminated fuel left at the station at the time, he said, “At that time, the remaining fuel was 4,000 litres.”
The Court presided over by Justice Isaac Addo has adjourned the sitting to January 30 for further cross examination of the Witness.
Plaintiff’s Case
The plaintiff, in his statement of claim filed by his counsel, Dela Blagogee of Blagogee, Blacksword and Co.
Law Chambers, averred that Vivo Energy placed profit ahead of human lives and endangered the lives of the plaintiff and his friend, John Michael Appiah-Acheampong, by fuelling his 2017 Ford Explorer vehicle they were travelling in with contaminated fuel.
He stated that shortly after the plaintiff exited the Atimpoku Shell filling station and about a kilometre drive, his car started to jolt and stutter with extreme violence, after which the engine ceased abruptly in the middle of the road whilst the vehicle was in motion.
The plaintiff argued that he and his friend suffered shock, fear, and panic as he had never experienced such a situation with his car before.
Again, the real possibility of an accident happening and the resultant injury or possible death the situation had exposed them to additionally heightened their fear,” the suit avers.
Mr Barwuah further averred that the filling station continued to sell the contaminated fuel to unsuspecting customers despite the station master being informed about the contamination about an hour earlier, and this constitutes reckless disregard for lives and property of the plaintiff and the general public.
It is for this reason that the plaintiff averred that the defendant “knew that the fuel product it was selling to the public, including the plaintiff, was contaminated and mixed with water, and deliberately decided not only to shortchange the plaintiff and the general public but also to put the lives of unsuspecting consumers at risk.”
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 GHc2.5 million.
He is therefore asking for special damages of GHc2.5 million, an order on Vivo Energy to replace his 2017 Ford Explorer with a similar vehicle of the same specification and damages for the loss of use of his car starting from August 28 to the day the vehicle is replaced, among others.
