Andre Klynsmith

Ports and Terminals

140 Transporters and Eight Shipping Lines: Durban Congestion Becomes a Competition Case

South Africa's Competition Commission has confirmed that it is conducting a preliminary assessment of a complaint against the Durban Gateway Terminal and eight shipping lines over allegedly excessive storage charges, landside congestion and anti-competitive practices.

Ports and Terminals

5 September 2026 • 5 min read

For most of 2026 Durban congestion has been an operational story told in stack occupancy percentages and truck turnaround times. It has now become a legal one. The central allegation is not that delays happened, but that the cost of those delays was billed to the party least able to prevent them.

Who Filed, and Against Whom

The complaint was lodged in July by Positive Freight Solutions (PFS), a body that represents 140 transporters employing an estimated 6 000 people. It names Durban Gateway Terminal (DGT) alongside eight shipping lines: Mediterranean Shipping Company, Maersk South Africa, CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd, Ocean Network Express, COSCO, Pacific International Lines and Evergreen.

Commission spokesperson Siyabulela Makunga confirmed receipt to Freight News. "The Commission is conducting a preliminary assessment to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed with the complaint," he said. That is the first procedural gate, not a finding, and no conclusion about any party's conduct has been reached.

The Allegation: Delay as a Revenue Line

PFS alleges that avoidable terminal delays are being monetised through demurrage, detention and storage charges imposed while hauliers are unable to access containers for reasons beyond their control. Stripped to its mechanics, the argument is that the clock on paid free time keeps running during periods when the cargo owner and the transporter have no practical ability to collect the box.

The named parties have contested elements of that framing. MSC previously disputed the allegations, saying terminal storage charges are imposed by DGT and that demurrage is not charged to trucking companies or independent hauliers. A DGT spokesperson previously said the terminal "remains actively engaged with the relevant stakeholders". Maersk South Africa, CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd, ONE, COSCO, Pacific International Lines, Evergreen and Transnet had not responded to requests for comment at the time of publication.

Why This Reaches Beyond Durban

The MSC response points at the structural issue rather than away from it. Storage is billed by the terminal; detention is billed by the line; the transporter is contracted by the cargo owner. Each party can accurately say the charge originated somewhere else, while the operator waiting at the gate absorbs the standing time. Where responsibility is split across three contracts, delay cost tends to settle on whoever has the weakest contractual position.

That structure is identical at Walvis Bay, Beira, Maputo, Nacala and Dar es Salaam. Nothing about it is unique to Durban, and nothing about it changes because a regulator has opened a file. What does change is that a documented, quantified record of terminal-caused delay is now potentially useful evidence rather than just an internal grievance — whether the forum is a competition authority, a rate negotiation or a claim under a haulage contract.

About the Author
	Andre Klynsmith Entrepreneur & Technology Enthusiast Andre's expertise spans technology, blockchain, transport, and logistics — with a passion for innovation and driving positive change across industries. info@laaimylorrie.com | laaimylorrie.com