ASANTE OFORI AND TEMA OIL REFINERY [2001]DLCHRAJ6065

Date	2001-02-22
Suit No.	Our Ref: CHRAJ/536/2000/734
Citation No.	[2001]DLCHRAJ6065

BENJAMIN K. OPPONG

[2001]DLCHRAJ6065
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;color:#00B050">ASANTE OFORI<o:p></o:p>(COMPLAINANT)<o:p></o:p>AND<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;color:#00B050">TEMA OIL REFINERY<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">(CHRAJ)<o:p></o:p>

Our Ref: CHRAJ/536/2000/734&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE:
22/02/2001<o:p></o:p>

</div>commissioner:<o:p></o:p>BENJAMIN
K. OPPONG DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LEGAL/OPERATIONS)
FOR COMMISSIONER<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;mso-pagination:none;
border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">DECISION<o:p></o:p>

</div>The
Complainant got serious body injury when kerosene he was putting in his lantern
suddenly exploded and caught fire. He subsequently reported the matter to the
Respondent who is the manufacturer of the kerosene. The Respondent accompanied
the Complainant to his house and took some of the kerosene to its laboratory
for testing. Later on the Respondent told the Complainant that the kerosene was
undiluted and therefore the explosion should not have occurred. The Respondent
therefore disclaimed responsibility for the incident. It is the case of the
Complainant that the burns are directly traceable to the kerosene he was using
and the manufacturer must be held responsible for it and he must therefore be
compensated.<o:p></o:p>The Commission invited the respondent's
comments on the complaint. In reply, the Respondent created an impression that
the kerosene was not put in a proper container. The Respondent also produced a
copy of the report on investigation conducted into the case. In an interview
with the Complainant at the Respondent's office, the Complainant indicated that
he had used the kerosene for about one week before the explosion took place. He
was also alleged to have admitted using the same kerosene after the explosion.
The Complainant also allegedly admitted that he poured the kerosene into the
lantern whilst the flame was on.<o:p></o:p>According
to the Respondent a sample of the said kerosene was taken to its laboratory for
testing and the out come of the test proved that the kerosene was on
specification, that is, it was suitable for use in lanterns and stoves or for
domestic use. The explosion therefore could not be attributed to contaminated
kerosene. The Respondent strongly believes the explosion may have resulted from
a wrong procedure in the use of kerosene. The Respondent said pouring kerosene
into the lantern from a big container can easily overfill the lantern without
being noticed spill over and with the flame on cause explosion and fire.<o:p></o:p>The Respondent however insisted that even
if the explosion was due to the use of contaminated kerosene, which is not the
case in this particular instance, it would not be liable because the Refinery
has no control over either deliberate or inadvertent contamination which
sometimes occurs at the various fuel stations. The Respondent says prior to the
delivery of any product to the market, it issues certificate of quality to the
oil marketing companies. What happens subsequently either deliberate or through
inadvertence is not the concern of the Respondent.<o:p></o:p>The Commission invited the Complainant for
a discussion. He admitted to almost everything said in the respondent's comment
on his complaint. He however denied ever using the said kerosene after the
explosion. He insisted that the explosion leading to the burns on his body is
directly traceable to the use of the kerosene. The Commission does not object
to this fact. When asked whether he could tell where the kerosene was bought
from, he said only his brother could do that. The Commission asked him whether
the said kerosene could be made available for an independent body to test it.
The Complainant however said he might not be able to produce the same kerosene.<o:p></o:p>The
Commission has taken cognizance of the fact that uncontaminated kerosene will
not explode and catch fire unless the procedure used was wrong.<o:p></o:p>The
test report of the </main>