Uganda operates under a contractual framework for adjudication unlike the United Kingdom's mandatory statutory regime. The phenomenon giving rise to the research is that despite being embedded in standard form contracts like Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority (PPDA) and FIDIC, adjudication remains underutilised and inconsistently applied in Uganda's construction industry. The aim of the research is to answer the conjecture on whether Uganda's construction industry needs legislative intervention to mandate statutory adjudication in order to address persistent challenges like delayed payments and disputes. Data was collected via a qualitative paradigm through a questionnaire that was answered by 108 professionals in Uganda's construction industry. The data was analysed by comparing the opinions, beliefs and attitudes of the participants. The data revealed that while adjudication is viewed as more effective than mediation, arbitration or litigation, its adoption has been limited. This has been due to barriers which include adjudicator incompetence, enforcement difficulties, resistance from parties that delete adjudication clauses and low awareness about adjudication. Despite government measures like ringfencing projects for local contractors, systemic issues persist since these government measures have been found to be insufficient and unable to deal with the major challenges affecting the construction industry in Uganda. Most respondents supported statutory adjudication emphasising the need for mandatory clauses, strict timelines and enforcement of adjudication decisions. This study proposes legislative reforms to establish a statutory adjudication regime prioritising mechanisms for timely payments and dispute resolution. The research also recommends improving adjudicator training, raising stakeholder awareness including amongst the judiciary so as to improve the outlook on enforcement of adjudicator decisions.