A dispute over a gasoline cargo supplied to Cameroon’s national refiner Sonara has already resulted in a €6.49 million payment, or about CFA4.26 billion, to commodities trader Trafigura, even though the central issue remains unresolved: whether the fuel met the quality standards set out in the contract.
The dispute dates back to October 6, 2025, when Sonara signed a contract with Singapore-based commodities trader Trafigura Pte Limited for 35,000 metric tons of diesel and 20,000 metric tons of gasoline, with a tolerance of plus or minus 5% at the seller’s option. The diesel was delivered and paid for without incident. The gasoline cargo triggered the dispute.
The MT Seavictory arrived off Cape Limboh on November 28, 2025. Samples were taken the following day to determine whether the gasoline met the contract specifications. Initial tests identified problems with two parameters: the octane rating, a key measure of gasoline quality, and gum content, which refers to residues that can form in the fuel.
Trafigura challenged the results and requested additional samples. A second analysis found that the octane rating met the required standard but continued to show an issue with gum content. A third round of sampling on December 6 produced a different result: the product was declared compliant, and Hydrac issued a quality certificate the following day.
Testing continued, however. New samples were collected in mid-December, including at Sonara’s request. The refiner then raised concerns about the fuel’s color and said the product developed residues over time. Trafigura disputed those findings. On December 24, 2025, Sonara formally rejected the cargo for noncompliance.
A CFA4.26 Billion Letter of Credit
The dispute is not limited to whether Sonara was entitled to reject the gasoline. It also concerns payment for the cargo.
To settle part of the transaction, Sonara had arranged on November 28, 2025, for a letter of credit with a maximum value of €6.49 million, or about CFA4.26 billion. In international trade, a letter of credit is a bank’s commitment to pay a seller when the required documents are presented in accordance with the agreed terms. The mechanism helps prevent payment for an international shipment from depending solely on a later dispute between buyer and seller.
The letter of credit was issued by BGFI Bank Cameroon and confirmed by Afreximbank. After rejecting the gasoline, Sonara sought to prevent payment. On January 6, 2026, it asked BGFI Bank Cameroon to suspend the letter of credit. The bank agreed to extend its validity but declined to block payment on its own initiative.
Sonara then went to court in Cameroon. On February 4, 2026, it filed a case before the Limbe Court of First Instance, seeking to suspend payment until an international laboratory could resolve the dispute over the fuel’s quality.
Trafigura challenged the proceedings. The trader relied on the sales contract and the letter of credit, which provide for English law and give the High Court in London jurisdiction over disputes between the parties.
Despite the proceedings in Limbe, Afreximbank ultimately paid Trafigura €6.49 million on April 9, 2026. The payment, however, did not amount to a judicial finding that the gasoline met the required quality standards. It resulted from the letter-of-credit mechanism.
London Rules on Jurisdiction, Not Gasoline Quality
That distinction was central to a July 30, 2026, ruling by the High Court in London. After Trafigura brought the matter before the British court, it ordered Sonara to end the proceedings it had initiated in Limbe.
Justice Michael Green found that the Cameroonian proceedings breached the contractual clause that gave English courts jurisdiction. The ruling therefore addressed where the dispute must be heard and the parties’ agreed payment mechanism. It did not determine whether the gasoline supplied by Trafigura complied with the contract.
Sonara told the High Court that it was considering proceedings in London to recover the money paid and seek damages based on the dispute over the fuel’s quality. Trafigura, for its part, maintains that the cargo met the contractual specifications.
After multiple tests produced conflicting results and CFA4.26 billion was paid to the trader, the core dispute remains unresolved. The next legal battle will have to determine whether Sonara was justified in rejecting the cargo under the quality requirements set out in the contract.
Amina Malloum