JUDGMENT OF APATU-PLANGE J.
In this case, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants jointly and severally is for (a) return of the plaintiff's taxi cab No. AZ 7488 negligently seized and detained by the defendants; and (b) loss of earnings at the average rate of ¢500 per day from 2 April 1979 up to the date of judgment.
The plaintiff in his evidence explained that his taxi cab No. AZ 7488 was wrongfully seized by the police in Kumasi on the instructions of the first defendant, and that the said seizure took place on 2 April 1979. He said after the seizure he made a demand to the first defendant to have his taxi cab returned to him but the first defendant refused, and he accordingly instituted this action. According to the plaintiff before this seizure he did not know the first defendant and the first defendant had not then obtained any judgment against him.
It is not in dispute that while this case was pending, the first defendant realised that he had, indeed, wrongfully seized the plaintiff's vehicle and therefore the first defendant released the plaintiff's vehicle to him on 17 July 1979. In fact, counsel for the first defendant wrote to the court to that effect and I reproduce below part of the letter of the first defendant's solicitor: "Upon a thorough check on the documents and the relevant dates, I realised that the vehicle was sold before the seizure on attachment. I therefore have no objection to your getting an order for the immediate release of the car."
There is no doubt therefore that the first defendant's seizure of the plaintiff 's said taxi cab No. AZ 7488 was wrongful, and I do so hold. The plaintiff is now asking for damages for loss of earnings suffered by him for the period that the taxi cab was impounded. He gave his average earnings as ¢500 a day which he had lost by reason of the wrongful seizure. The hearing of the claim in respect of the damages for loss of earnings was fixed for 30 July 1979 to the knowledge of the first defendant and his solicitor but they both failed to turn up in court. The hearing therefore proceeded without the first defendant. Admittedly taxi service earns quite a lot for the hardworking taxi driver today, especially in the big cities like Accra and Kumasi. However, it seems to me that the ¢500 stated by the plaintiff as the average amount he was earning per day appears to be an extravagant figure. I hold that an amount of ¢250 per day [p.480] would be a more realistic figure. From 2 April 1979 to 17
