The court found that the respondent, as co-administrator, had refused or neglected to execute the assent necessary to transfer the properties in accordance with the confirmed grant. The grant had been confirmed after due process, with the respondent's counsel having been duly served and notified of the hearing. No appeal or application to set aside the confirmation had been filed, and the confirmed grant therefore remained valid and enforceable. The court held that it was empowered, under its inherent jurisdiction and the Probate and Administration Rules, to authorize the Deputy Registrar to execute and seal the assent in place of the non-cooperating co-administrator to give effect to the confirmed grant and prevent further delay or abuse of process.