Sale of petroleum products: a carrier ordered to pay 10 million FCFA to his supplier

The Commercial Court of Cotonou issued a dual ruling in a dispute arising from the sale of a cargo of petroleum products. Marcellin Dossa must pay Serge Oké the sum of 10 million FCFA corresponding to the balance of the price of the goods. In return, Serge Oké was ordered to pay two million FCFA to the carrier for the wrongful immobilization of his truck.

The judgment was pronounced on July 2, 2026, by the First Judging Chamber of Section II, after debates held on June 25. The court ruled in a contradictory manner, in commercial matters and at first instance.

Serge Oké had brought the case to court on March 24, 2026. He was claiming 10 million FCFA from Marcellin Dossa for the debt, one million FCFA in damages, and 300,000 FCFA for the expenses incurred in the procedure.

According to the claimant, the cargo had been sold for a total amount of 30 million FCFA. Marcellin Dossa would have only paid 20 million FCFA, leaving a balance of 10 million. This debt was acknowledged in a document signed on April 1, 2024.
The carrier did not contest being liable for this amount. However, he requested the court to declare the action inadmissible and to dismiss the claims of his supplier.

In his defense, Marcellin Dossa argued that the transaction involved smuggled gasoline sold outside the legal framework. According to him, the sales contract had an illegal object and could therefore produce no legal effect.

He claimed that the sale and distribution of petroleum products in Benin were subject to prior approval and that Serge Oké did not justify any authorization allowing him to conduct this activity. Consequently, he requested the annulment of the contract as well as the acknowledgment of the debt.

The Sale Contract Ruled Valid

The court dismissed this argument. It first established that the acknowledgment of debt dated April 1, 2024, confirmed the existence of an unpaid debt of 10 million FCFA.

The judges held that Serge Oké had a legitimate and legally protected interest in seeking payment of this amount. The inadmissibility argument raised by Marcellin Dossa was therefore rejected.

The court also did not uphold the request for annulment of the contract. It considered that the trade of petroleum products was not, in itself, a prohibited activity, but a regulated activity by public authorities, notably through gas stations and mini-stations.

According to the judgment, the parties had freely consented to the transaction and Marcellin Dossa had acknowledged owing the balance of the price of the delivered products. Thus, the court concluded that the subject of the contract was not illegal and that the sale could not be annulled on that basis.

The judges then reminded that the buyer is required to pay the agreed price after taking delivery of the goods. In the absence of any payment on the 10 million FCFA acknowledged, Marcellin Dossa was ordered to pay this amount.

However, the demand for one million FCFA in damages presented by Serge Oké was rejected. The court found that the supplier had not demonstrated the existence of a harm distinct from the mere non-payment of the debt.

Marcellin Dossa had, on his side, claimed 42 million FCFA in damages. He accused Serge Oké of immobilizing his truck, which he presented as his main source of income.

The carrier claimed that the vehicle earned him two million FCFA per month and that it had been immobilized for a long period. He indicated that he had requested to retrieve the truck to continue his business and repay his debt, but without success.

He also accused his supplier of making him believe that the vehicle was in Nigeria, while an inspection would have established that it was kept in a garage in Kétou.

On this point, the court found fault on the part of Serge Oké. The evidence in the case allowed the judges to ascertain that he had immobilized Marcellin Dossa’s vehicle without having a judicial decision authorizing him to do so.

The court classified this practice as an unlawful act. It considered that the immobilization deprived the carrier of the use and commercial exploitation of his truck.

However, since Marcellin Dossa did not provide evidence of the exact duration of the immobilization or the claimed monthly earnings, the court did not grant the 42 million FCFA claimed. It set the compensation at two million FCFA for the loss of enjoyment and lost profits.

The judgment is subject to provisional execution. However, this only applies to half of the monetary award. The request for execution on minute was rejected, the court finding that no imminent peril or extreme necessity was demonstrated.

Marcellin Dossa was ultimately ordered to pay the costs of the procedure.