R.M v ATTORNEY GENERAL & 4 others [2010] eKLR which there was clear evidence that – “Dimarco was denied other prison amenities. For instance, she was not allowed day-to-day contact with other inmates. Nor did she have access to some of the educational programs that would have put her in contact with other inmates ---”. 94. It was submitted that contrary to the petitioner’s allegation that he could not enjoy the right to education because statutory forms under the Ministry of Education did not provide for intersexual, it was on record that the petitioner dropped out of school for reasons unrelated to his gender. Nor did the petitioner demonstrate that he suffered any ridicule during the process of his criminal litigation prior to the conviction he now complains of. 95. In summary, court was urged to disregard the submissions of the 4th Interested Party, on grounds that the said submissions are unsupported generalizations about broad subjects that are not before this court for determination. In particular the court was urged to disregard the 4th Interested Party’s purported representation of the petitioner’s mother. It was also submitted that s 51 of the Prison Act, Cap 90 provides for various forms of punishing offending prisoners under Part IX of the Act, and that all the punishments prescribed there under, are within the scope of the law, applicable to all prisoners across the board. In light of the above submissions, this court was urged to find that the petitioner’s claims as contained in the amended petition filed on 16th October, 2009, lack merit and should be dismissed. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION 96. We have considered the petition and the submissions made before us. We have also given due consideration to all the authorities to which we were referred. In our view, the following issues emerge for determination: (i) Whether the petitioner has properly moved the court i.e. whether a petition for enforcement of fundamental rights under Section 84 of the Constitution can be brought together with an application for Judicial Review under Order LIII of the Civil Procedure Rules. (ii) The issue of locus i.e. whether the petition before the court is a representative suit. If so, whether the court has jurisdiction under Section 84 of the Constitution to consider generally the rights and violations of rights of intersex persons. (iii) Whether the petitioner is an intersex person, and if so, whether the petitioner suffers from lack of legal recognition and protection under the Constitution. (iv) Whether petitioner has suffered lack of legal recognition because of Sections 2(b) and 7 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act, and if so, whether these provisions are inconsistent with the principle of equality and non discrimination enshrined in Section 82 of the Constitution. http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 25/45