“Learned counsel for the appellant, relying on our decisions in Adelekan V Ecu-Line NV (2006) All FWLR (PT321) 1213 AT 1226, BOT & ORS V JOS Electricity Distribution PLC (2021) LPELR 55327(SC) and NEPA V. Adegbero (2003) FWLR (pt 139) 1556, argued that the exclusive jurisdiction conferred on the trial court by S.251(1) of the 1999 Constitution does not extend to claims for damages for the tort of negligence, that damages for the tort of negligence is not one of the subject matters within the said exclusive jurisdiction and that this is regardless of the fact that the defendant is an agency of the Federal Government, that the negligent act of a Federal Government Agency cannot qualify as an executive or administrative action or decision of the said agency, because intrinsic in a negligent act is a careless abandonment and lack of attention that is clearly inconsistent with an executive or administrative decision and that the trial court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit and therefore its exercise of jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit is a nullity. Learned counsel for the respondent did not reply to the above arguments. His arguments rather dwelt on showing that the claim in the suit is not a fatal accidents claim over which the Kaduna State High Court has jurisdiction by virtue of the Kaduna State Fatal Accident Law, that the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the trial Federal High Court lacked the jurisdiction over the suit is the result of his misunderstanding the suit as a fatal accidents claim, that it is one for damages for negligence which is outside the purview of the Fatal Accidents Law and is therefore within the trial court’s jurisdiction. Let me now determine the merit of the above arguments. The failure of the respondent to reply to the appellant’s argument that the claim for damages for negligence is not within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Federal High Court did not render the argument correct and sacrosanct. There is need for the court to consider the argument to find out if the argument is correct. Where a party has argued a point, he thereby invites the court to judicially determine the issue so argued. The argument serves to invoke and guide the courts judicial inquiry into the issue. The contrary or alternative argument by the other side provides an alternative or balanced guide for the court on the matter. The arguments remain mere opinions or inferences of law or facts on the basis of the evidence on record and prevailing law. Their validity Would be determined by such evidence and existing relevant law and not the absence of an alternative or Contrary opinion.” Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, JSC in NEPA V. MALLAM MUHAMMAD AUWAL (2022-LCER-46637-SC) at Pp. 12 – 14, Paras. A-A.