The facts of this case are relevant to this interlocutory appeal are that the appellant as plaintiff at the trial court sued the respondent as Defendant for declaration to a Statutory or Customary Right of Occupancy to land as contained in paragraph 40 of his Statement of Claim.

In putting his claim before the trial court, the appellant pleaded his root of title at paragraph 3 of his Statement of Claim thus:

The respondent, as transpired, denied emphatically and set up a contrary root vide paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Statement of Defence. To prove his case, the appellant called traditional evidence by the 1st plaintiff who testified thus:

"My family got on the land during the Ibadan Uebu War. Odetunde was a warrior and he was our ancestor who first settled on the land. Iba Oluyole was Olubadan at the time. It was Bankole Alesinloye who was the Balogun of Ibadan at the time told (sic) odetunde to go and defend the land against the Ijebus. When the war was over, Odetunde settled there with his family and he established a village there."

It ought to be borne in mind that this Court had long before now clearly decided that there is a difference between a grant and a settlement. For, while a grant comes from a previous tide holder to a subsequent one called a grantee, settlement does not recognise a previous titleholder. See Mogaji & Anor. V Olofa (1968) NMLR. Thus, where a plaintiff as in the instant case, established his claim to the land in evidence, he cannot be said to have proved his title. See Balogun v. Akanji (1988)1 NMLR (Part 70)301 at 322. Furthermore, the appellant having led evidence following his pleading as to the grant to him of the land in dispute cannot now be heard to blow hot and cold by asking to plead settlement in place of a grant See Ezomo v. N G. of Bendel State (1986)4 NWLR (Part 36) 448 at 462 and Watson v. Cave (No.2)1881 l7Ch.D23. Cf Ekpo v. Ita 11 NLR68.