The Station Manager of the Atimpoku branch of Vivo Energy Ghana Limited (Shell Filling Station), John Delase-Michael, has told the High Court in Accra that he has not brought before the court “evidence” of the assessment impact report from of critical national institutions that aimed to protect the public interest.
Delase-Michael, the star witness for Vivo Energy umbrella organisation of Shell Filling Station at Atimpoku, also told the Court that he is not aware of any official guidelines from Vivo Energy to be followed at fuel station when raining.
The Atimpoku Manager was testifying in the ongoing fuel contamination action initiated by businessman Edmund Barwuah.
Edmund Barwuah, the Plaintiff, 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.
The Plaintiff, in a suit filed before the High Court in Accra, 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. However, that duty was breached by Vivo for “selfish and unholy financial gain.”
The Plaintiff was one of the many customers 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.
Under cross-examination, he 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 who 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.
Not aware of Guidelines
When asked if he was aware of official guidelines to be followed when it is 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.
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DW1 BY COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF DW1
NB: Q – Question, A-Answer, DW1: First Defence Witness
Q: There was no assessment to ascertain whether or not the effect of the fuel leakage went beyond the filling station in order to have same addressed.
A: That is not true.
Q: Do you still stand by your claim that you invited the Environmental Protection Authority to come and investigate the matters that occurred at the filing station.
A: 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 they all came to, the filing station having been invited by our head office.
Q: These institutions that you claim were invited, did they come on the day of the incident, the following day or when.
A: They came on the following day specifically on Monday.
Q: Did any of these institutions you allegedly invited give you a report on their assessment of the effect of the leakages at your
station.
A: 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.
Q: You are still the station manager at the defendant’s Atimpoku filing station.
A: Yes.
Q: Did the defendant inform you that a report in respect of the alleged assessment done by those institutions you listed was presented to them.
A: That has not been mentioned to me.
Q: As the station manager in charge of the Alimpoku fling station, there was no discussions watsoever about the alleged assessment of the impact of the fuel leakage issues with you.
A: No. The outcome of the investigation done, I was not informed.
Q: It is the case that not even the defendant or your superior officers brought to your attention the outcome of any such alleged assessment of the impact of the fuel leakage. That is
correct.
A: No. as I have stated earler before this court, the investigation and the report I was not told anything about it or issued with such a report.
Q: I am putting it to you that there was no assessment by the critical national institutions ie the EPA, The Ghana Fire Service, The Ghana Meteorological Authority on the effect of the fuel leakage issue.
A: That is not true.
Q: 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 who are in the position to protect the public interest.
A: Yes. I have not brought any report to this court.
Q: Are you aware of any ofcial and documented guidelines by the defendant required to be mandatorily followed when it is raining at its filling station.
A: No.
Q: Do you recall the fire incidence that occurred at Circle sometime in June 2015 where ass of our flow ctizens lost ther lives as a result of water infiltraling underground five storage tank wich forced fuel out of the tank to mix with running rain water which then came into contact with fire and threw the entire country into a state of mourning.
Objection by Counsel for Defence: I strongly object to this line of question, it is terriby unfair to defendant and also prejudicial to the determination of the issues before this court. The question goes beyond the scope of the issue before this honourable court. The question is also not relevant to the determination of the issues before this court and we humbly pray that the question be disallowed.
Counsel for Plaintiff: This is cross-examination and cross-examination is at large. We have laid sufficient foundation for this question. We have taken the witness through the impact of their negligence on the larger community. In fact it is the witness himself that told this court that it rained heavily on the day of the incident and that running rain water made its way into their fuel tank. I simply just ask the witness “does he recall” if he doesn’t that is fine. Counsel said the question is unfair and prejudicial but has not stated how it is unfair and prejudicial of a simple question asking if the witness recall such an incident.
This Question is relevant and u pray that the objection be overruled.
By court: Can the court take judicial notice of the incident that happened at Kwame Nkrumah Cirdle in 2015.
C/deft: Yes my lord.
By court: Since the incident that happened the Kwame Nkrumah Circle in 2015 is an incident we all know and the court can take judicial notice of same, for the purposes of cross-examination, the court will alllow the question and so the objection is overruled. The witness must answer the question.
Q: Do you recall the fire incidence that occurred at Circle sometime in June 2015 where lots of our fellow citizens lost their lives as a result of water infiltrating underground fuel storage tank which forced fuel out of the tank to mix with running rain water which then came into contact with fire and threw the entire country into a state of mourning.
A: Yes.
Q: The defendant is a multinational company, that is correct.
A: Yes.
Q: And the defendant has its headquarters in the United Kingdom, that is correct.
A: Yes.
Q: I am putting it to you that the defendant takes its customers and the public interest in Ghana for granted that is why it failed to take the necessary steps to ensure a proper assessment, investigation and corrective measures to ensure that any impact on the environment is addressed.
A: That is not true.
Q: I am further putting it to you that it is the lack of care of the defendant that is why the defendant has not discuss any such report with you the station manager as you yourself acknowledge.
A: That is not true.
Source: www.kumasimail.com
