| The respondent obtained a mining lease from the State Government. |
| Clause 21 of the lease reserved to the Government the right to prior purchase of the minerals raised by the lessee. |
| While the lease was subsisting, the, respondent stood for election to the state Legislative Assembly and was elected. |
| The appellant, his closest competitor, challenged the election by an election petition on the ground, inter alia, that the respondent was disqualified under section 7(d) of the Representation of People Act (XLIII of 1951), because he had a contract with the Government for supply of goods. |
| 153 HELD:the petition must be dismissed. |
| The disqualification which results from the section is conditioned by three circumstances. |
| First, there must be a subsisting contract between the appropriate Government and the candidate. |
| Then the contract must be in the course of the trade or business of the candidate and, finally it must be inter alia for the supply of goods to such Government. |
| Held in the case that as the mining lease was subsisting, the contract if any, was also subsisting. |
| Further that the mining lease, if it was a contract, was in the course of the business of the respondent. |
| It was not necessary that a course of business based upon other transactions must have first existed before the offending contract could be said to be in the course of business. |
| The contract itself could be the start of the business. |
| Held therefore that the mining lease was not a contract to supply goods to the Government. |
| There was only a right in the Government to pre empt the minerals and lessee could not begin delivery to the Government until Government served a notice on him stating the quantity preempted and the time within which the supply should be made. |
| This was only a reservation of a right of pre emption which did not amount to a contract for the supply of goods which could be said to subsist between the parties. |
|
|
