Nearly three years after the death of Delta Park High School teacher Kirsten Kluyts, the Johannesburg High Court has found Bafana Mahungela guilty on all the charges he faced, bringing one of South Africa’s closely watched murder trials to its next stage – sentencing.
Judge Ian Cox found the 23-year-old guilty of murder, kidnapping, attempted rape, robbery with aggravating circumstances and defeating the ends of justice arising from the killing of Kluyts on 29 October 2023.
Mahungela had pleaded not guilty throughout the proceedings and disputed key aspects of the State’s case.
The court has postponed the matter to 27 October 2026 for sentencing proceedings.
What the court found
Judge Cox concluded that the State had proved Mahungela’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The judge found that Kluyts was unlawfully and intentionally killed after suffering a sustained and violent assault. The post-mortem evidence established that she died from blunt-force trauma to the head and strangulation, with pressure to the neck or smothering also not excluded.
Kluyts was 34 and was 14 weeks pregnant with a baby boy when she was killed.
The court also found that she had been deprived of her freedom before her death, satisfying the elements of kidnapping.
On the attempted rape charge, Judge Cox said there was no evidence that rape had been completed. However, he found that the State had proved that the perpetrator intended to rape Kluyts and that the conduct had gone beyond preparation and amounted to an attempt.
The CCTV evidence that became central to the case
One of the most important parts of the investigation and trial was surveillance footage collected from cameras around George Lea Park, Sandton and surrounding properties.
The State argued that the footage placed Mahungela in the area before and after Kluyts disappeared.
According to evidence presented in court, Mahungela was captured entering the park wearing a black T-shirt. Later footage showed a man leaving the area wearing a blue T-shirt that investigators identified as Kluyts’ clothing.
The footage also showed the man carrying items and later disposing of clothing and other belongings in a stormwater drain.
The court found the footage had been properly authenticated and was admissible.
A facial-comparison expert from the SAPS forensic system also identified Mahungela as the person appearing in the footage. The court considered this evidence together with other identifying characteristics, including his build, gait, footwear, bucket hat and a distinctive mark or tattoo on his upper arm.
The State’s case was largely circumstantial, but the court said the evidence had to be considered cumulatively. In doing so, Judge Cox concluded that it pointed conclusively to Mahungela’s guilt.
The clothing and the stormwater drain
Perhaps one of the most damaging pieces of evidence was what happened to Kluyts’ belongings after her death.
The court heard that Kluyts was found naked, while her clothing and personal possessions had been removed from the area.
Mahungela had previously admitted that he undressed Kluyts and wore her blue T-shirt before disposing of clothing and other items.
He had given the explanation that he was attempting to prevent his fingerprints from being found on the clothing because he feared police would believe he was responsible for her death.
The court rejected the explanation as inconsistent with the totality of the evidence.
CCTV footage showed a person identified as Mahungela disposing of items in a drain. Kluyts’ cap was later recovered from that location.
Judge Cox said the deliberate removal and concealment of the belongings demonstrated a conscious attempt to distance the perpetrator from the crime and eliminate evidence that could connect him to the offences.
The judge described it as a classic example of defeating or obstructing the course of justice.
What police found
The investigation developed around several strands of evidence rather than one single piece of forensic evidence.
Police and investigators worked with:
- CCTV footage from the area surrounding George Lea Park and nearby properties
- footage tracking the movements of the suspect before and after the attack
- identification evidence from a forensic image analyst
- the recovery of Kluyts’ belongings from a stormwater drain
- post-mortem evidence establishing the cause of death
- evidence concerning Mahungela’s movements on the morning of the murder
- Mahungela’s own admissions concerning the removal and wearing of Kluyts’ clothing.
Investigators also established that Kluyts’ cellphone was found close to the running route shortly after she disappeared, while her body was subsequently discovered in a secluded area beside the path.
The State argued that the fatal assault lasted approximately eight minutes.
But what about the DNA controversy?
DNA evidence became an important point of contention during the earlier stages of the case.
Mahungela’s defence previously challenged aspects of the forensic evidence and questioned whether crucial DNA material had been properly dealt with or disclosed. His legal representatives also made representations asking prosecutors to withdraw the charges.
The National Prosecuting Authority ultimately decided to continue with the prosecution after reviewing those representations.
The final conviction, however, was not based on a single DNA finding. The court considered the totality of the State’s evidence, including the CCTV evidence, expert identification, forensic evidence, Mahungela’s own admissions and the circumstances surrounding Kluyts’ clothing and belongings.
What the NPA says
Before the final judgment, NPA Gauteng spokesperson Magaboke Mohlatlole said the prosecution remained confident in the evidence placed before the court.
After the conviction, the NPA welcomed the outcome and commended the prosecution team for what it described as its meticulous preparation and presentation of the State’s case.
The NPA said the conviction represented a significant milestone in securing justice for Kluyts and her family.
The prosecution was led by State Advocates Siyabonga Futshana and Leisha Surendra.
Who is Bafana Mahungela?
Mahungela was 21 when he was arrested and is now 23.
He was a student at Varsity College and was living at a student residence in the Benmore/Parkmore area when he was arrested on 26 November 2023.
His arrest came almost a month after Kluyts’ murder and followed the development of the CCTV investigation.
Before the case, former school friends described Mahungela as a student who attended Steelcrest High School in Middelburg from Grade 8 through matric. One friend told TimesLIVE that he played rugby, enjoyed anime and was known as a daydreamer with an impulsive sense of humour.
Those descriptions came from people who knew him before the murder case and should not be confused with findings about his guilt.
His family stood by him
Mahungela’s family has maintained his innocence throughout much of the legal process.
His father was seen supporting him during court appearances, and the family previously told the court that they could no longer afford private legal representation. Mahungela subsequently moved to Legal Aid as the trial approached.
The family also previously disputed aspects of the State’s evidence, including the CCTV evidence, with reports indicating that they believed evidence had been manipulated to implicate him.
Publicly available reporting has provided considerably more information about his father’s support and the family’s position on the case than about his mother’s identity or broader family circumstances. There is therefore no reliable basis to add unverified details about his parents or siblings.
Mahungela represented himself during the trial
Another unusual aspect of the case was Mahungela’s decision to represent himself during parts of the trial.
After the guilty verdict, he appeared visibly distressed and questioned the court about the process and whether his rights had been protected.
“I am not sure that I want to stand for myself,” Mahungela said, questioning how he could be sure that he would not be “tricked” in future proceedings.
Judge Cox explained that the guilty verdict was not the end of the legal process and that the matter would proceed to sentencing.
What happens next?
Mahungela has not yet been sentenced.
The Johannesburg High Court has postponed the case to 27 October 2026, when sentencing proceedings are expected to take place.
At that stage, the State and defence will make submissions on the appropriate sentence.
The court will consider the seriousness of the offences, the circumstances surrounding the murder, aggravating and mitigating factors and other legally relevant considerations before imposing sentence.
The guilty verdict therefore establishes Mahungela’s criminal liability for the offences. The next major question is how the court will punish him.
A case that has lasted almost three years
Kluyts was killed on 29 October 2023 while taking part in a running event at George Lea Park in Parkmore, Sandton.
Her disappearance triggered a search by fellow participants and members of the public. Her body was later found in a secluded area near the running route.
Mahungela was arrested almost a month later.
The case then moved through numerous postponements, bail proceedings, pre-trial applications and a lengthy High Court trial.
In September 2026, after considering the evidence presented by both sides, Judge Cox reached the conclusion that the State had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
For Kluyts’ family, the guilty verdict closes one chapter of the case – but with sentencing still to come, the legal process is not yet over.
