On 17 September 2013, the appellant purchased 41.3 litres of petrol for $63 from the respondent's service station for his Mazda 3 vehicle (registration ABM 9742). Two days later, the vehicle started jerking and lost transmission. The vehicle was towed to Hino Zimbabwe on 19 September 2013. On 28 September 2013, Hino Zimbabwe drained fuel from the car, cleaned the fuel tank, changed the fuel pump and fuel filter, and put in new fuel. The car then performed well. The appellant accused the respondent of selling contaminated fuel and sought damages of $739. The respondent disputed the claim, stating their tanks had been checked by Total Zimbabwe and found to be clean. The magistrate's court dismissed the appellant's claim with costs on 24 February 2014. The appellant appealed on 12 March 2014.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
In a claim for damages arising from allegedly contaminated fuel, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving: (1) that the defendant acted negligently by selling fuel that was contaminated or suspected to be contaminated; and (2) that the fuel purchased from the defendant was the cause of the damage suffered. Mere suspicion or coincidence of timing is insufficient. Where evidence shows that damage could have resulted from the plaintiff's failure to maintain their vehicle (such as not changing filters for extended periods), and where no other customers experienced similar problems, the plaintiff fails to discharge the burden of proof. Additionally, documents not properly discovered in accordance with court rules cannot be admitted as evidence.
The court observed that dealing with a customer complaint is a process and not a one-day event, commenting that an investigation and report within approximately one week of receiving detailed information about the complaint (11 October 2013 report following 3 October 2013 Hino Zimbabwe conclusions) cannot be considered unduly delayed. The court also noted that fuel filters by their nature filter fuel and hold back sediments, inevitably getting clogged over time (approximately one year), thereby necessitating filter changes at least annually. The court further noted that having the drained contaminated fuel as an exhibit would not have assisted the appellant in establishing his case, as there was no proof linking that fuel to what was purchased from the respondent.
This case clarifies the burden of proof in claims for damages arising from allegedly contaminated fuel. It demonstrates that a plaintiff must establish negligence on the part of the seller and prove a causal link between the fuel sold and the damage suffered. The case also illustrates the importance of proper discovery procedures and the principle that costs follow the cause in civil litigation. It reinforces that alternative explanations for damage (such as lack of maintenance) can defeat a claim where the plaintiff bears the onus of proof.