When a cheque bounces and recovery begins, one of the most common defences is: “that was only a security cheque — it was never meant to be cashed.” Does it work? Usually not. This article explains why.
Last updated: May 2026. Part of our complete bounced cheque recovery guide.
Quick answer
A so-called “security cheque” is generally still enforceable in the UAE. Unless the written contract clearly states the cheque is conditional or held only as security, a cheque is treated as an unconditional payment instrument. UAE law gives effect to the clear written terms — alleged oral side-promises usually cannot override them.
The defence, and why it is raised
A debtor whose cheque has bounced often argues the cheque was:
- a “security” or “guarantee” only,
- not to be presented until some condition was met, or
- subject to further “due diligence.”
The aim is to recast an unconditional payment promise as a conditional one — and so escape enforcement. It rarely succeeds.
Why the written contract prevails
If the agreement contains a clear payment clause — for example, “Party Two shall pay AED [amount] by cheque number [X]” — that clause controls. Under UAE Civil Code Article 125, where the terms of a contract are clear, they cannot be varied by extrinsic evidence. In plain terms: an alleged spoken promise cannot rewrite a clear written term.
So if the contract says the cheque is payment, and nothing in writing makes it conditional, the “security cheque” claim is contradicted by the document the debtor signed.
No evidence of the condition
The defence also tends to fail on evidence. A debtor claiming the cheque was conditional must show proof of that condition — typically in writing. A bare assertion, with no clause and no documentation, carries little weight. Where an independent broker or witness was present at signing and recorded no such condition, the claim weakens further.
The cheque is independent anyway
Even setting the contract aside, a dishonoured cheque is an executory instrument. Its enforceability does not depend on the contract behind it. Re-labelling it “security” does not change its legal character once it has been presented and returned.
How to respond to this defence
If a debtor’s lawyer raises the security-cheque argument, the response is direct: point to the clear written payment clause, invoke Article 125, demand evidence of the alleged condition, and note the absence of any written record of it.
Received a lawyer’s letter making this argument? Reply to a legal notice · Proceed to cheque execution
Frequently asked questions
My cheque was meant as security. Can it still be cashed? If the written contract treats it as payment and nothing in writing makes it conditional, it can generally still be enforced.
What if there was a verbal agreement it was only security? Verbal side-agreements usually cannot override clear written terms under Civil Code Article 125, and you would need to prove the verbal agreement existed.
Does calling it a “guarantee cheque” change anything? The label does not control — the written terms and the cheque’s character do.