Where relief is sought under Article XIV of this Act and the court determines, on motion directed to the pleadings, or on motion for summary judgment or upon trial, that the plaintiff has pleaded or established facts which entitle the plaintiff to relief but that the plaintiff has sought the wrong remedy, the court shall permit the pleadings to be amended, on just and reasonable terms, and the court shall grant the relief to which the plaintiff is entitled on the amended pleadings or upon the evidence. In considering whether a proposed amendment is just and reasonable, the court shall consider the right of the defendant to assert additional defenses, to demand a trial by jury, to plead a counterclaim or third party complaint, and to order the plaintiff to take additional steps which were not required under the pleadings as previously filed.
14-109.Seeking wrong remedy not fatal.
Article XIV. Mandamus · Not amended since adoption on record · Last verified July 20, 2026
In one sentenceLets a court permit amended pleadings and grant proper relief when a mandamus plaintiff proved entitlement to relief but sought the wrong remedy, instead of dismissing the case outright.
Full Text of 735 ILCS 5/14-109
Plain-English Summary
Sometimes a plaintiff proves the facts that entitle them to relief but frames the case under the wrong legal vehicle. Section 14-109 tells the court what to do when that happens in a mandamus case, whether the issue surfaces on a motion directed at the pleadings, a motion for summary judgment, or at trial: permit the pleadings to be amended on just and reasonable terms, then grant the relief the plaintiff has earned.
The section doesn't leave "just and reasonable" undefined. It directs the court to weigh the defendant's right to raise additional defenses, demand a jury trial, plead a counterclaim or third-party complaint, and require the plaintiff to take steps that weren't necessary under the original pleadings. Those factors protect a defendant from being blindsided by a late shift in legal theory, even as the plaintiff avoids losing on a technicality.
This provision is worded identically in Section 18-107 for quo warranto, and applies the same rule (adapted with "or petitioner"/"or respondent" language) in Section 16-111 for ne exeat, showing a consistent legislative approach across these extraordinary remedies: substance over labels, tempered by fairness to the defendant.
Frequently Asked Questions
What happens if a mandamus plaintiff proves their case but used the wrong remedy?
Section 14-109 directs the court to allow amended pleadings on just and reasonable terms and grant the relief the plaintiff is entitled to, rather than dismissing the case.
At what stage can a court apply Section 14-109?
On a motion directed to the pleadings, a motion for summary judgment, or at trial.
What must a court consider before allowing an amendment under this section?
The defendant's right to raise additional defenses, demand a jury trial, plead a counterclaim or third-party complaint, and any additional steps the plaintiff must now take that weren't required before.
Does this section let a plaintiff win without proving their case?
No. It applies only where the plaintiff has already pleaded or established the facts entitling them to relief; the problem is the wrong choice of remedy, not a factual shortfall.
Do other Illinois extraordinary remedies have a similar rule?
Yes. Sections 16-111 and 18-107 apply the same wrong-remedy rule to ne exeat and quo warranto proceedings.
Amendment History
(Source: P.A. 82-280.)
Source & verification. Section text and amendment history are
reproduced verbatim from the Illinois Compiled Statutes, published by the
Illinois Compiled Statutes, Illinois General Assembly / Legislative Reference Bureau. Last verified July 20, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: wrong remedy mandamus illinoisamending pleadings mandamus illinoismandamus case not dismissed for wrong remedy