Where relief is sought under Article XVI 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 or petitioner has pleaded or established facts which entitle him or her to relief but that he or she 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 plaintiff or petitioner 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 or respondent to assert additional defenses, to demand a trial by jury, to plead a counterclaim or third party complaint, and to order the plaintiff or petitioner to take additional steps which were not required under the pleadings as previously filed.
16-111.Seeking wrong remedy not fatal.
Article XVI. Ne Exeat · 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 ne exeat plaintiff or petitioner proved entitlement to relief but sought the wrong remedy, instead of dismissing the case.
Full Text of 735 ILCS 5/16-111
Plain-English Summary
This section applies the same wrong-remedy safety valve to ne exeat cases that Section 14-109 applies to mandamus. If a court determines — on a motion directed to the pleadings, a motion for summary judgment, or at trial — that the plaintiff or petitioner proved facts entitling them to relief but pursued the wrong remedy, the court permits amendment on just and reasonable terms and grants the relief earned.
In weighing what's just and reasonable, the court considers the defendant's or respondent's right to raise additional defenses, demand a jury trial, plead a counterclaim or third-party complaint, and any additional steps the plaintiff or petitioner must now take that weren't required under the original pleadings.
The identical structure appears in Section 14-109 for mandamus and Section 18-107 for quo warranto, showing the legislature applied one consistent rule across these three extraordinary remedies.
Frequently Asked Questions
What happens if a ne exeat plaintiff proves their case but chose the wrong remedy?
Section 16-111 directs the court to allow amended pleadings on just and reasonable terms and grant the relief the plaintiff or petitioner is entitled to.
At what stages can this wrong-remedy rule apply in a ne exeat case?
On a motion directed to the pleadings, a motion for summary judgment, or upon trial.
What factors guide whether an amendment is just and reasonable under this section?
The defendant's or respondent's right to additional defenses, a jury trial, a counterclaim or third-party complaint, and any new steps required of the plaintiff or petitioner that weren't needed before.
Does Section 16-111 apply if the plaintiff hasn't proven the underlying facts?
No. It applies only where the plaintiff or petitioner has pleaded or established facts entitling them to relief, and the defect is choosing the wrong remedy.
Do mandamus and quo warranto have the same wrong-remedy protection?
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 ne exeat illinoisamending ne exeat pleadingsne exeat case not dismissed for wrong remedy