NAIROBI, Kenya – Health officials are investigating whether the first confirmed Ebola patients in Kenya and Nigeria crossed paths at Uganda’s Entebbe International Airport on October 3, as efforts intensify to establish how the virus spread to both countries.
The possible airport encounter is one of several leads being examined by the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC), although authorities have not established that the two patients met or that their infections are connected.
Dr Wessam Mankoula, Africa CDC’s head of emergency preparedness and response, said investigators were examining whether the patients might have interacted or encountered shared facilities or equipment while passing through the airport.
He described a possible link between the cases as one scenario under investigation, cautioning against drawing conclusions before the inquiries are completed.
The investigation comes as Kenya reports nine confirmed infections, including one death, while Nigeria has confirmed its first Ebola case in more than a decade. Both infections involve the Bundibugyo virus, a strain responsible for the ongoing outbreak that began in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
How the two patients travelled
The Kenyan patient, a man who had been living in the DRC, travelled through Uganda before arriving in Nairobi on October 3. He died on October 5, and Kenya subsequently confirmed the infection on October 6.
The Nigerian patient is a 42-year-old Ugandan-born woman living in Abuja. She returned to Nigeria on October 3 after spending time in Uganda, travelling through Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, where she reportedly had a two-hour stopover.
She developed symptoms four days after arriving in Nigeria, sought treatment at private health facilities in Abuja and tested positive for Ebola on October 20. She remains in isolation and is receiving medical care, with the World Health Organization (WHO) reporting that her condition was stable and showing signs of improvement.
Her husband, a Swiss diplomat based in Nigeria who accompanied her on the Uganda trip, was also placed in isolation but had not developed symptoms, according to the information provided by officials.
Despite the overlapping travel dates, investigators have not confirmed whether the two patients used the same airport facilities, came into direct contact or shared any potentially contaminated objects.
Dispute over where Nigeria’s infection originated
The Nigerian woman’s movements before returning to Abuja have become a key part of the investigation.
Ugandan officials have said she had travelled to eastern DRC, where the current outbreak originated. However, WHO and Africa CDC officials have said they have not received verified information establishing that she entered the DRC.
WHO officials say the patient’s travel and exposure history is still being reconstructed, with investigators working to establish where she contracted the virus.
The uncertainty has complicated efforts to identify the source of Nigeria’s infection and determine whether it was acquired during her stay in Uganda or through another exposure.
Nigeria’s disease control authorities are also prioritising genomic sequencing, which could help scientists compare the virus detected in the Nigerian patient with samples from other cases. However, sequencing alone would need to be considered alongside epidemiological evidence, including travel records and contact histories, to establish a possible transmission link.
Uganda has said it has no confirmed active Ebola cases following the end of its previous outbreak. The country’s role as a transit point for both patients has nevertheless placed cross-border surveillance and investigations under increased scrutiny.
Nigeria expands contact tracing
Nigerian authorities initially identified 44 people who had been in contact with the woman. Africa CDC officials have since indicated that investigators had identified additional potential contacts, particularly healthcare workers at facilities where she sought treatment, as well as family members.
Officials are working to identify those considered at high risk and place them under appropriate monitoring or quarantine. An updated total was not immediately available in the reports of the investigation.
The woman’s visits to multiple health facilities before her diagnosis have also increased the importance of tracing medical personnel and other people who may have been exposed before Ebola was confirmed.
The WHO has said investigators have faced difficulties obtaining a complete account of her movements while she remains hospitalised.
Kenya monitors contacts as cases reach nine
In Kenya, health authorities have linked all nine confirmed cases to the first patient, with no evidence reported of wider community transmission as of October 22. Eight patients remained in isolation following the death of the index case, according to the Ministry of Health’s reported updates.
The first group of people placed under quarantine after possible exposure was expected to begin returning home on October 25 after completing the 21-day monitoring period without developing symptoms.
Health Director-General Dr Patrick Amoth has urged Kenyans to remain vigilant while avoiding panic, stressing that the response is continuing.
The investigation into the possible Entebbe encounter adds an international dimension to efforts to contain the outbreak, highlighting how travel between countries can complicate the tracing of contacts and the reconstruction of infection chains.
Why the airport investigation matters
Ebola spreads primarily through direct contact with the blood or other bodily fluids of an infected person, or with objects contaminated by those fluids. It is not transmitted through the air in the same way as influenza.
People who have been exposed may develop symptoms during the incubation period, which can last up to 21 days. They are not considered infectious before symptoms begin.
For investigators, determining whether the Kenyan and Nigerian patients crossed paths could help establish whether their infections share a transmission link or arose from separate exposures.
Until the travel histories, contact investigations and laboratory evidence are assessed together, however, the possibility of an airport encounter remains a hypothesis rather than a confirmed explanation for Nigeria’s case.
