Ultra Eureka Limited has become the talk of Nairobi’s business circles, and its director, Jackson Kiplimo Chebett, is now a name synonymous with controversy. From aggressive property takeovers to multi-million shilling tax disputes, Chebet has built a reputation as a high-stakes investor who operates on the edge of legality.
At the heart of the storm is the ongoing tussle with former Cabinet Secretary Raphael Tuju over a prime Karen property, including Dari Business Park and Tamarind Karen.
As the legal drama intensifies, questions are surfacing about Chebet’s methods, political connections, and history of financial and operational scandals.
The Owner of Ultra Eureka Limited and the Karen Property Battle
The current scandal erupted when Ultra Eureka Limited acquired Tuju’s multi-billion shilling property at a public auction in October 2024. The auction, prompted by a debt dispute between Tuju and the East African Development Bank, saw Ultra Eureka pay KSh 450 million for a property valued by Knight Frank at KSh 590 million.
Tuju has argued the sale was undervalued and politically motivated, while Chebett insists the transaction was legal and above the forced sale minimum of KSh 442.5 million.
Tensions boiled over in March 2026. Ultra Eureka attempted to take possession of the property, leading to violent confrontations. Chebett claimed Tuju arrived with “50 armed men” to resist the takeover, while Tuju accused Chebett of deploying “hired goons” and using police support to bypass legal protections.
The High Court has since issued preservatory orders to prevent Ultra Eureka from transferring the title until the April 7 hearing, but the shadow over Chebet’s business tactics remains.
Aggressive Takeovers and Enforcement Methods
Jackson Chebett’s approach to property acquisition is far from conventional. Ultra Eureka’s methods in Karen mirror a pattern observed in prior operations: rapid transfers of assets and swift enforcement actions.
Legal analysts have noted that Chebett frequently uses his status as a bona fide purchaser to defend acquisitions from prior owners’ claims, often moving faster than standard legal processes would allow.
Even before the Tuju case, Ultra Eureka’s involvement in evictions drew scrutiny. The company has been accused of using private security firms, including Lavington Security, to forcibly remove occupants from properties under dispute.
Chebett counters that these actions are defensive, claiming his staff have suffered “brutal attacks” by those resisting lawful acquisitions. The intensity of these operations has fueled speculation about potential high-level backing and state protection for Chebet’s maneuvers.
KRA Tax Dispute and Allegations of Fraud
The owner of Ultra Eureka Limited has a long history of high-stakes conflicts with regulators. Between 2018 and 2020, Ultra Eureka faced a tax demand of KSh 82.7 million from the Kenya Revenue Authority for alleged unpaid Corporation Tax and VAT. Chebett’s legal team raised a sensational defense: fraudulent entries had been made in the company’s i-Tax account, possibly orchestrated by competitors seeking to sabotage the firm.
The dispute escalated dramatically. In mid-2022, the KRA conducted a dawn raid on a rival clearing and forwarding firm following allegations that Ultra Eureka’s PIN had been hijacked to inflate the company’s perceived revenue. While the case remains a cautionary tale of corporate warfare in Kenya, it cemented Chebet’s reputation as a figure willing to challenge regulators and defend his operations aggressively.
Beyond tax matters, Ultra Eureka has faced scrutiny over customs compliance. As a licensed clearing agent, the company imports industrial machinery, chemicals, and LPG cylinder filling equipment for regional distribution, especially to Uganda.
Disputes with KRA over assessment methods and tax uplift calculations have been frequent, with Chebet arguing that government assessments often overstate liabilities by applying arbitrary margins, sometimes as high as 25 percent above actual financials.
Political Connections and Business Influence
Chebet’s dealings suggest more than just business acumen—they hint at strategic political ties. Opponents, including Tuju and Siaya Governor James Orengo, have accused him of leveraging powerful networks to gain advantages in property disputes and enforcement operations. While Chebet maintains a low profile, the coordinated presence of law enforcement during his property takeovers raises questions about possible support from influential state actors.
These connections are especially relevant given the recent disappearance of Raphael Tuju. On March 22, Tuju’s car was found abandoned in Karen, sparking speculation that the property dispute with Ultra Eureka—or Chebet’s network of allies—may be linked to threats against him.
The Directorate of Criminal Investigations is currently probing these claims, but the incident has intensified scrutiny on Chebet’s conduct and the reach of Ultra Eureka Limited.
Scandals Beyond Karen
The current Karen property feud is only the tip of the iceberg. Jackson Chebett and Ultra Eureka have a documented history of contentious business conduct:
- Tax Evasion Allegations: As previously detailed, the KRA dispute involving KSh 82.7 million highlights potential mismanagement and the use of aggressive legal strategies, including claims of fraudulent ledger entries and competitor sabotage.
- Logistics Irregularities: Ultra Eureka’s operations in customs clearance and industrial goods trade have occasionally attracted regulatory attention for alleged under-declaration of imported chemicals and machinery, particularly for exports to Uganda.
- Violent Enforcement Practices: Beyond evictions, Chebett’s methods of asset acquisition are consistently described as forceful, sometimes involving private security, creating a pattern of intimidation against former owners or resisting parties.
Together, these controversies paint a portrait of a businessman who operates at the intersection of legal ambiguity, financial risk, and political influence. Observers argue that Ultra Eureka’s rapid asset acquisitions and ability to mobilize security resources suggest a corporate strategy that combines market opportunism with tactical leverage over both competitors and regulators.
