For several days now, information has been circulated by certain media outlets and on social media concerning a dispute between SONARA and the trader TRAFIGURA.
These publications contain inaccuracies, omissions and interpretations that do not faithfully reflect the circumstances and substance of the said dispute. In particular, the information presented tends to create the impression among the national public that SONARA’s handling of this dispute has been lacking in professionalism.
SONARA rejects this interpretation, which seeks to turn judicial proceedings arising from TRAFIGURA’s failure to fulfil a substantive obligation under a contract for the purchase by SONARA of 20,000 metric tonnes of premium motor spirit (gasoline) into a source of controversy.
Indeed, as part of its activities to supply the national market with refined petroleum products, SONARA entered into the aforementioned contract with TRAFIGURA on 6 October 2025, under which TRAFIGURA undertook to deliver a cargo of gasoline complying with Cameroonian specifications.
Upon the cargo crossing the customs border, analyses of the gasoline samples revealed anomalies presenting serious risks to consumers. On 30 November 2025, the issuance of a certificate of analysis by the SONARA laboratory formally established the non-conformity of the delivery made by TRAFIGURA.
On the basis of the findings of HYDRAC and the reference laboratory, SONARA formally notified the trader on 19 and 24 December 2025 of its rejection of the cargo it had ordered, on the grounds referred to above.
Subsequently, both parties referred the matter to the Ministry of Water resources and Energy (MINEE), the relevant technical supervisory authority, for arbitration. Following investigations and a hearing held in the presence of all stakeholders, the authority confirmed the rejection decision, on the basis of the objective evidence presented by SONARA.
As a precautionary measure, SONARA applied on 4 February 2026 to the Limbe Court of First Instance (TPI) for interim relief, seeking to suspend the effects of the Letter of Credit (LC) until the dispute arising from the rejection of the cargo presented by TRAFIGURA had been resolved, in accordance with the provisions of the aforementioned sale contract.
“Any attempt to portray either party as having obtained an irreversible victory, or to characterise the conduct of either party as constituting an established legal wrongdoing before the matter has been finally determined by the High Court of London, would be premature, misleading and potentially tendentious”.
While the above-mentioned proceedings were ongoing, the trader TRAFIGURA brought the matter before the High Court of London on 31 May 2026. The Court declared itself competent to hear the matter in light of the provisions governing the Letter of Credit.
Unexpectedly, TRAFIGURA obtained payment from AFREXIM Bank, upon presentation of the documentation relating to the LC, in respect of demurrage allegedly arising from the purchase of the cargo rejected by SONARA. This subsequently led BGFI Cameroun, the issuing bank of the said Letter of Credit, to debit SONARA’s accounts held with the bank, for an amount corresponding to the sum improperly withdrawn by the trader.
In response, SONARA requested that the High Court of London examine the substance of the case, seeking to assert its legal rights to restitution of the amount unduly paid and compensation for the loss suffered. The matter will be heard by the British High Court in accordance with its procedural rules.
In light of the facts set out above, any attempt to portray either party as having obtained an irreversible victory, or to characterise the conduct of either party as constituting an established legal wrongdoing before the matter has been finally determined by the High Court of London, would be premature, misleading and potentially tendentious.
It should be clarified that, by applying to the Limbe Court of First Instance, SONARA simply sought, by way of a precautionary measure, to prevent TRAFIGURA from obtaining payment of demurrage while its cargo had been rejected for failure to comply with Cameroonian specifications.
Under no circumstances did SONARA challenge the High Court of London’s substantive jurisdiction to determine the merits of the dispute, particularly given that the existence of a jurisdiction clause in the contract, duly signed by both parties to the dispute, is undisputed.
Pending the outcome of these proceedings, the public, media professionals and all stakeholders should exercise restraint and refrain from drawing hasty conclusions from information that is incomplete or presented selectively.
In any event, allegations circulated by certain economic media outlets claiming that SONARA has been found liable by the High Court of London in proceedings that remain pending are entirely contrary to the facts.
This report was first published in NewsWatch Newspaper No. 239 of Wednesday, September 23, 2026.
