Bukasu v Diakonia - Sweden - Africa (Cause E315 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2291 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed that paid interns are employees, but their fixed-term contracts legally end on the agreed date without any compensation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the parties had an employment relationship.
- 2.If yes, whether the relationship was indefinite or fixed term.
- 3.Whether the Respondent terminated the relationship unfairly.
- 4.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs which she seeks through these proceedings.
Key legal issues
#Whether an intern is an employee
Yes - an intern paid a stipend or wage is an employee under section 3 of the Employment Act.
Black's Law Dictionary defines an intern as one apprenticing to gain practical experience; apprentices and indentured learners are included in the statutory definition of employee. Prior ELRC decisions and Ogembo's text confirm interns are employees for employment law purposes. The Claimant received Ksh. 30,000.00 monthly, so an employment relationship existed despite her training status.
Whether the relationship was fixed term or indefinite
Fixed term - three successive internship contracts, the last expiring 20th February 2023 with no renewal provision.
The parties executed three successive written contracts covering 21st February 2022 to 20th February 2023. The last contract had no extension clause, so the Respondent had no obligation to renew and the Claimant had no legitimate expectation of renewal. Following Court of Appeal authority, the contract expired by effluxion of time.
Whether there was unfair termination
No - the contract lapsed by effluxion of time; the Respondent merely notified her of the agreed end date.
The notification on 13th February 2023 that services were no longer required was not a termination but confirmation that the contract would close on its agreed sunset date of 20th February 2023, as agreed on 21st November 2022. Prayers for declaration, notice pay, damages for premature termination and compensation were accordingly declined.
Whether the Claimant acted as Regional Communication Officer
No - she served throughout as a supervised intern; no appointment document exists.
None of the three contracts appointed her to any position other than Communication Intern. Emails and her own handover report described her as an intern. Documents addressed to her did not ipso facto prove acting status, and her supervisor lacked authority to appoint her to the position. The acting allowance claim was declined.
Jurisdiction over work injury claim
The ELRC lacks jurisdiction; claims under the Work Injury Benefits Act go to the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services.
Section 16 of WIBA obligates employees to process work injury claims, including future medical care, under the Act. Under Part IV such claims are taken to the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services, not the court. The court declined to entertain the injury and future treatment claims.
Proof of special damages for lost items
Claim for Kshs. 378,500.00 for lost phone and camera failed for want of specific proof.
The lost items were special damages requiring specific proof by production of receipts showing acquisition cost, per Kosgei v Mutisya and George v Babu. The Claimant tendered no documents establishing the value of the camera and phone, so the claim was declined.
Unpleaded matters and discrimination
Discrimination allegations rejected; a rehabilitation-program ground raised only at trial offended the rule against unpleaded cases.
The pleaded particulars (lower pay, termination while injured, laptop) did not constitute discrimination in fact and law since she never acted in the senior position and her contract legitimately ended. Counsel's casual-employment/section 37 conversion argument also did not arise as it was not pleaded.
Legal principles established
#- An intern paid wages or a stipend is an employee within the meaning of section 3 of the Employment Act.
- A fixed term contract expires on its sunset date by effluxion of time and lapse is not unfair termination; absent an express renewal provision the employee has no legitimate expectation of renewal.
- Special damages must be specifically proved by production of receipts.
- Parties are bound by their pleadings and cannot establish cases on unpleaded matters.
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the case are granted to the Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act; court declined jurisdiction over work injury claim under the Work Injury Benefits Act
Relief refused
#Declaration that her contract of service was unfairly terminated; notice pay; damages for premature termination; compensation for unfair termination
The fixed term contract expired by effluxion of time on its sunset date; the Respondent did not terminate it.
Salary for February 2023
Documented evidence showed the February 2023 salary was paid.
Acting allowance equivalent to Ksh. 350,000.00 as Regional Communication Officer
No evidence of appointment to act; contracts and emails showed she was an intern throughout.
Compensation for injuries sustained in Ghana and Ksh. 500,000.00 future treatment expenses
Court lacks jurisdiction; work injury claims lie with the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services under the Work Injury Benefits Act.
Kshs. 378,500.00 for lost phone and camera
Special damages not specifically proved by receipts.
Claim of discrimination
Particulars did not constitute discrimination in fact and law; contract legitimately ended by effluxion of time; one ground was unpleaded.
Costs
Costs of the case are granted to the Respondent.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In the premises, the court finds that the parties had an employment relationship even though the Claimant was under training.
a fixed term contract expires on its sunset date through efiuxion of time. Unless the contract has an express provision for renewal, the employee cannot entertain legitimate expectation that it will be renewed after its sunset date.
Consequently, the suit is dismissed.
Costs of the case are granted to the Respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency in the Claimant's own account of her engagement dates - pleadings say engagement from 21st August 2022 to 20th November 2022, oral testimony says February 2022 to August 2022
Judgment alternately refers to 13th February 2023 notification as termination by the Respondent and as mere notification that the contract came to an end
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bukasu v Diakonia - Sweden - Africa (Cause E315 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2291 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2291/eng@2025-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.