The court found that the application was premised on the mistaken belief that the grant had been confirmed, whereas the record showed otherwise. The purported sale of the land by individuals who were not administrators constituted intermeddling and could not confer good title. The applicant failed to establish a prima facie case for a prohibition order, as the land remained registered in the name of the deceased and the grant had not been confirmed. The court further held that rectification of a grant is limited to correcting errors and does not extend to substantive exclusion of property. The application was therefore premature and without merit, as the proper legal processes for confirmation and distribution of the estate had not been completed. The applicant was not entitled to the orders sought, and the application was dismissed with costs to the respondents.