This article was updated on August 25, 2026, to remove comment incorrectly attributed to MSC South Africa managing director Rosario Sarno. Freight News regrets the error.
Road freight hauliers have lodged a formal complaint with the Competition Commission against eight major shipping lines, Durban Gateway Terminal (DGT) and Transnet over allegedly excessive storage charges, landside congestion and anti-competitive practices.
Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC), Maersk South Africa, CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd, Ocean Network Express (ONE), COSCO, Pacific International Lines and Evergreen are among the respondents named in the complaint, which was filed in July.
The complaint is being spearheaded by the Positive Freight Solutions (PFS) Container Division, which represents 140 transporters employing an estimated 6 000 people.
The transporters allege 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.
MSC has disputed the allegations, saying terminal storage charges are imposed by DGT and that demurrage is not charged to trucking companies or independent hauliers.
DGT, formerly Durban Container Terminal Pier 2, is operated by International Container Terminal Services Inc (ICTSI) under a 25-year concession agreement with Transnet. ICTSI officially assumed operational control on January 1 through a special-purpose vehicle in which Transnet retains a 51% shareholding.
However, the introduction of DGT’s standalone Navis N4 system, coupled with severe landside congestion, has disrupted cargo movements and prompted the South African Association of Freight Forwarders (Saaff) to declare a crisis at the terminal.
Delays drive up charges
PFS Container Division CEO Alex Hill outlined the central allegations in an exclusive interview with Freight News.
He alleged that DGT management was prioritising equipment and gangs used to load and discharge vessels on the waterside of the terminal.
“The terminal operator favours vessel working over landside services to avoid quayside penalties. This prioritisation, combined with terminal-caused delays, results in import containers remaining trapped.
“The terminal’s commercial and operational interests are aligned with shipping lines, allowing these delays to be monetised through automated storage charges that are billed to and collected by those lines,” Hill alleged.
According to the complaint, storage charges imposed on containers trapped at the terminal can run into thousands of rands a day.
PFS data indicates that terminal storage charges billed to cargo owners through shipping lines can reach US$140 (about R2 500) per container per day after free-time allowances expire.
The transporters allege that these charges are compounded by separate demurrage and detention fees of between US$80 (R1 420) and US$100 (R1 775) per container per day.
They have also raised concerns that several shipping lines have reduced their detention-free periods, in some cases from five days to four, despite congestion and system failures making it difficult to clear cargo within the allotted time.
Hill said the truck-booking bottleneck at DGT had severely restricted landside access for independent transporters, while containers could remain trapped for up to nine days.
“The truck-booking system is fundamentally broken. Slots are virtually impossible to secure, and when appointments simply disappear from the system, our vehicles are turned away at the gate while storage charges continue to clock up automatically,” he said.
“These practices unfairly penalise independent road transporters for inefficiencies outside their control.”
Several hauliers who spoke to Freight News on condition of anonymity said gate delays, disappearing booking slots and inflexible billing cycles were pushing their businesses to breaking point.
“We are absorption points for operational failures we did not create. When trucks sit in queues for 12 hours, or appointments disappear from the system, the penalties still land on our desks. It is bankrupting us,” one transporter said.
Another said his company had incurred thousands of rands in storage costs because it had been unable to secure booking slots to collect containers.
“The system is stacked against us, and we are paying for their failure,” he said.
The transporters said shipping lines billed cargo owners for the charges, which were then passed on to hauliers.
The complaint also details how certain carrier policies allegedly compound landside congestion. These include strict removal periods for hazardous cargo at DGT.
The transporters alleged that requirements for the immediate removal of dangerous goods forced hauliers to navigate severe gate delays while facing steep storage charges if containers were not cleared within the prescribed period.
They further alleged that shipping lines’ integrated road logistics subsidiaries received preferential access to booking slots and operational handling, placing independent hauliers at a competitive disadvantage.
Transporters also claimed that certain lines had offered to waive charges for the late collection of containers if their own subsidiaries transported the cargo instead of independent operators.
MSC disputes allegations
MSC South Africa managing director Rosario Sarno disputed the allegations, saying terminal storage charges were imposed by DGT rather than shipping lines.
“Storage charges at the terminal are imposed by DGT, not the lines. These charges are applied in accordance with a public tariff over which shipping lines have no control,” Sarno said.
He said shipping lines were also incurring substantial losses because vessels had been delayed outside the port.
“As a result of the ongoing congestion, shipping lines have vessels waiting outside the port for weeks. Contractually, we are unable to recover these additional costs from DGT, meaning that over the past four months the losses arising from these delays have been absorbed entirely by us.
“It is therefore incorrect to suggest that shipping lines benefit from or welcome the congestion. The primary delays today are not containers waiting in the terminal, but rather containers remaining on board vessels outside the port for extended periods.”
Sarno also denied allegations that shipping lines’ transport subsidiaries received preferential treatment.
“To the best of our knowledge, there is no preferential treatment for carrier haulage. Our transport company is also incurring losses as a result of these delays,” he said.
He said demurrage was not charged to trucking companies or independent hauliers.
“As far as I know, no demurrage is charged to hauliers for empty containers moved from DGT to the depots.
“Demurrage is not charged to trucking companies or independent hauliers. I can only assume that if a trucking company chooses to commercially accept penalties on behalf of a third party, that is a business decision made at its own discretion and risk.”
Regarding the removal of hazardous cargo, Sarno said the strict requirements referred to by the transporters arose from TNPA regulations and had nothing to do with the shipping lines or terminal.
A DGT spokesperson did not respond to specific questions about the complaint but 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.
Asked whether it intended to join the complaint, Saaff, which declared a congestion crisis at the terminal on Friday, said legal action was not among its “bouquet of solutions”.
The Competition Commission had not responded to a request for comment at the time of publication.
