It was certainly held up by my language teacher as one of the verbs that in every known language is always irregular (the others being to have and to be).
I think this is an exaggeration. Some languages don't vary the forms of any of their verbs, so there is no scope for morphological irregularity (e.g. Mandarin Chinese); some languages don't have a verb "to be" or "to have" (e.g. some Celtic languages represent the relation of possession through constructions which can be translated as "there is to/with me (noun phrase)").