In Aktau, a security guard died after being attacked with a metal object, but a special investigation commission did not classify the incident as a work-related accident, infohub.kz reports.

According to the official Telegram channel of the Mangystau Region courts, a specialized inter-district administrative court heard a case filed by a plaintiff against the labor inspectorate. The plaintiff sought to have the special investigation act into the accident declared illegal and to compel a special investigation.

During the trial, it was established that the man had signed an employment contract with a security agency. On September 8, 2025, at 8:00 p.m., he began his shift at a security post at the Mangystau Regional Center for HIV Prevention.

On September 9, 2025, at around 1:00 a.m., an unknown individual under the influence of drugs, intending to commit robbery and carrying a long metal object, climbed over a fence and entered the blood collection unit. The guard, hearing noises, went toward the unit, where the unknown assailant attacked him with the metal object, striking him multiple times on various parts of his body. The victim was taken to the Mangystau Regional Hospital, where he died from his injuries.

By order of the defendant, a commission was formed to conduct a special investigation into the accident. According to the special investigation act, the commission concluded that the incident was not a work-related accident.

The court found the commission's conclusions unfounded on the following grounds: the accident occurred during working hours at the workplace where the deceased had been assigned by his employer.

In drawing up the special investigation act, the commission concluded that the guard was asleep during the accident, and that the causes of the accident—the unlawful actions of an unknown person—were not related to the performance of his job duties and had no causal link to the consequences.

However, during the investigation, the commission did not request video recordings from the blood center, did not examine the criminal case materials, and did not interview officials of the LLP. The defendant conducted the investigation formally without establishing all the causes and circumstances.

In violation of the Labor Code, the commission did not include representatives of the HIV Prevention Center and the LLP.

Accordingly, the court fully granted the claim. The court's decision has not entered into legal force.